ἔ 


SOA 
TRAN 
RAG 


LQ 
SS 
δ \\ 


SY 
WA 
SOs 
AK 


Ν WY 
δὰ 
Sh 
\\ A δὰ 


UK 
RAV 
\ 


AX 


SS 


ξ 
' 
tees 
na 
x 
= 


Scction ape nate e 


No, aeer ere RPI 


4 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2011 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/testimonyofjusOOpurv 


Litlh de Co Colon 
εὐ; 


THE TESTIMONY 


OF 


JUSTIN MARTYR 


TO 


EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 


LECTURES 


DELIVERED ON THE L. P. Stone FOUNDATION AT PRINCETON 
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, IN Marcu, 1888. 


BY 


A 
GEORGE T. PURVES, D.D 


PASTOR OF THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF PITTSBURGH, PA. 


NEW YORK: 
ANSON D. F. RANDOLPH AND COMPANY, 


38 WEST TWENTY-THIRD STREET. 


Copyright, 1889, 


By Anson ἢ. F. RANDOLPH AND COMPANY. 


University Wress : 


JOHN WILSON AND SON, CAMBRIDGE. 


PREFACE. 


THE following lectures were delivered on the L. P. 
Stone Foundation at Princeton Theological Seminary, 
and are published at the request of the Faculty. The 
form in which they were originally delivered has been 
retained, and but few changes made in substance or 
language. They have been prepared in such leisure 
moments as could be found in a busy pastorate, and 
the author keenly realizes their many imperfections. 
He hopes, however, that they may stimulate more of 
our Presbyterian ministers to cultivate the field of early 
patristic literature. Its importance to Christian apolo- 
getics is very great. Its study will also contribute to 
clearer views of the nature and true unity of the Church. 
It should not be left, as it has so largely been, to Ro- 
manists and rationalists. While we firmly hold to the 
sole authority of the Scriptures for faith and practice, 
the history of the early ages of our religion and the 
careful examination of all the elements which, as time 
went on, entered into it will enable us to read the 
New Testament with fresh confidence and intelligence. 
Above all, in this age of historical criticism, when so 
many minds are honestly confused concerning the evi- 
dences for the faith of the Church, some acquaintance 
with the events and literature of the second century is 
demanded of those who would successfully guide the 


iv PREFACE. 


inquirer and help the doubter. The author may be 
allowed to add that, with the utmost desire to deal 
fairly with the evidence and to follow the facts, he has 
obtained, by his excursions into patristic literature, re- 
newed assurance both of the divine origin of Christian- 
ity and of the correctness of the orthodox Protestant 
estimate of the New Testament. 


ALLEGHENY, Pa., 1888. 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE I. 


THE IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY TO 
EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 


PaGe 


Importance of the Study of the Second Century. — Critical Theo- 
ries of the Origin of Christianity. —The New Testament Canon. 
— The Christian Ministry. — The Union of Christianity and 
Philosophy. — The Unity of the Church.— The Life of Justin: 
his Birth; Philosophic Studies; Influence on Contemporaries ; 
Death; Character; Conversion; Chronology of his Life; his 
Situation in Rome.— The Writings of Justin and their Date. 
— Analysis of the Apologies and the Dialogue.—The conse- 
quent Importance of Justin’s Testimony. — Early and Modern 
Views concerning Justin. — Plan of the following Lectures . 1 


LECTURE II. 


THE TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN TO THE SOCIAL AND 
CIVIL RELATIONS OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 


Justin as an Apologist.— The Diffusion of Christianity. — Organi- 
zation of Christian Societies.— Popular Hostility. — Charges 
made.— Popular Impatience with the Christians, — Explana- 
tion of this Hostility. — Attitude of the Government. — Chris- 
tianity illegal. — No formal Persecution. — Frequent Outrages. 
— Justin’s Description confirmed by other Evidence. — Hadri- 
an’s Rescript.— Correspondence of Trajan and Pliny. — Sup- 


vi CONTENTS. 


; PAGE 
pression of Unauthorized Societies. — Membership in them a 


Crime.— Action of the Emperors with reference to Christi- 
anity.— Efforts to prevent Outrages.— The Sufferings of the 
Christians not so severe as often supposed. — Persecution but 
just beginning. — Justin’s Defence. — He appeals substantially 
for the Legal Recognition of Christianity: (a) Because it was 
the true Philosophy — Strength and Weakness of this Plea; 
(6) Because of the Virtues of the Christians and Simplicity of 
their Customs.— His Description of Christian Life. — Power 
of this Argument—Its Value forus .......+-.+ - 50 


LECTURE III. 


THE TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN TO THE RELATIONS 
OF GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 


Value of Justin’s Testimony in this Particular.— The Tibingen 
Scheme and its Modifications. — Ritschl’s View. —I. Estimate 
of the Old Testament by the Church. — Its Inspiration. — The 
Prophets. — Method of Interpretation. —'The Old Testament 
a Christian Book. — Justin’s Failure to appreciate the Hebrew 
Dispensation. — Total Rejection of Judaism. — Comparison of 
his Views with the New Testament.— The Church a Gentile 
Society. —Justin’s Opinion of Jewish Christians. — Various 
Views in the Church.— Extremists on both Sides. — Justin’s 
moderate but firmly anti-Jewish View that of the Majority. 
II. Had there been a silent Blending of Gentile and Jewish 
Christianity ? — Evidence alleged for this: (1) Abhorrence of 
“Tdol-meat” — The Authenticity of “The Acts” — Justin’s Po- 
sition not due to Jewish Sympathies; (2) His Silence concern- 
ing Paul — The Facts in the Case — Use of Pauline Writings — 
References to “the Twelve ἢ — Unity of the Apostles assumed ; 
(3) Chiliasm — No Proof of Jewish Tendencies; (4) Legalism— 
Its Growth — Not necessarily due to Judaism. — Summary of 
Justin’s Testimony, and Inferences from it . ..... . 85 


CONTENTS. vii 


LECTURE IV. 


THE TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN TO THE INFLUENCE 
OF PHILOSOPHY ON EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 


Pace 
Contrast, as regards the Influence of Philosophy, between the 


Writings of Justin and the New ‘Testament.— Progress of 
this Influence in the Early Church. — Character of the Philos- 
ophy of the Period: Eclectic; Theological. — Justin shows 
the Spirit of his Age. — His Criticism of the various Schools. 
— Relation to Stoicism; to Platonism.— The Influence of 
Philosophy on Justin’s Theology, as shown in (I.) his Idea of 
God — Divine Transcendence unduly emphasized — Two Con- 
ceptions of God contending in his Mind; (II.) His Doctrine 
of the Logos in the sense of Reason — Relation of the Logos 
to the Father — Agent in Creation and Revelation — Relation 
to Man — The “ Seminal Logos; ” (III.) His Anthropology — 
Human Freedom and Ability — Power of the Demons — Idea 
of Sin; (IV.) His Soteriology — Christ primarily a Teacher — 
Nature of Salvation. — Inferences concerning the Influence of 
Philosophy on Christianity, and the Realization by the Latter 
of the best Aspirations of the Pagan World. . . . . « « 128 


LECTURE V. 


THE TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN TO THE NEW TES- 
TAMENT. 


Its Importance. — Review of modern critical Opinion concerning 
Justin’s Use of our Gospels.—I. Justin and the Synoptics. — 
The “ Memoirs.” — Justin’s Account of Christ’s Life remark- 
ably full; agrees substantially with that of our Gospels. — 
The Differences trivial; Oral Tradition and Textual Cor- 
ruption explain the most important of them; they do not 
destroy the Force of the Argument from the substantial 
Agreement. — The Variations in the Text of Justin’s Quota- 
tions from that of our Gospels. — Extent of the Variation. — 
Examination of his Habits of Quotation, as shown by Quota- 
tions from the Classics and Old Testament. — Bearing of this 
on Quotations from the “ Memoirs.” — Comparison of Justin’s 
Quotations and those of the Pseudo-Clementines. — Did Justin 


ΨΙΠΙ. CONTENTS. 


PAGE 
use a Harmony ? — Bearing of the Evidence afforded by Jus- 


tin of Corruption of Gospel Text on the Antiquity of our Gos- 
pels. —II. Justin and the Fourth Gospel. — Views of Thoma 
and Abbott. — Evidence for Justin’s Use of the Fourth Gos- 
pel. — How did he use it? As historically True and presuma- 
bly Apostolic, yet not with the same Fulness as Synoptics, 
and more as a Book of Doctrine.— Reasons for this. — Con- 
firmation of Justin’s Use of our Gospels afforded by Tatian’s 
Diatessaron. —III. Justin and the New Testament Canon. — 
His Use of New Testament Books besides the Gospels. — 
Recognition of Authority of Apostles as Teachers. — Use of 
“Memoirs ” as Sources for Belief and as “Scripture.” — Yet 
“Memoirs” not called ‘‘ Scripture ” with same frequency as 
Old Testament.—No New Testament Book quoted, except 
Gospels and Apocalypse.— Mentions no public Use of the 
Epistles, and differs from their Teaching. — Considerations 
which balance these Items of Negative Evidence. — Conclu- 
SLO pra Nees ey ates sue Meth be): nieyh tol 0h) Κῆρ ον ἀν top femme 


LECTURE VI. 


THE TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN TO THE ORGANI- 
ZATION AND BELIEF OF THE POST-APOSTOLIC 
CHURCH. 


Review. — Justin claimed to represent the true Christian Church. 
— His Opposition to Heresy. — Proves the Unity and Aposto- 
licity of the Orthodox Churches. — His Testimony trustworthy. 
—I. The Organization of the Churches.— Description of Cere- 
monies and Worship.— One Church in each Locality. —A 
permanent President to each. — Deacons. — Why the Title of 
the President not given. — Absence of Sacerdotalism. — Jus- 
tin accords with the known Facts of the Progress of Church 
Organization in the Second Century. — The Unity of the 
Churches spiritual. — II. The Faith of the Church: how to 
be obtained from Justin ; (1) The Person of Christ; (2) The 
Trinity ; (3) Redemption; (4) Privileges and Hopes of the 
Christians; The Sacraments; Eschatology. — Conclusion. — 
Post-Apostolic Christianity not created by Fusion ; but modi- 
fied by Paganism.—Inferences to be drawn from Justin’s 
ΑΞ πη τὴ Ὁ ΤΥ ishlntsth dshinrwitles afol Sify) sie yeh alse ee RC OL 


THE TESTIMONY 


OF 


EUSTIN MARTY R 


TO 


EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 


aa 


JUSTIN MARTYR. 


LECTURE I. 


THE IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY TO 
EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 


HE first three quarters of the second Christian 
century form a period which demands the care- 
ful and repeated investigation of students Tenens 
both of the New Testament and of Church ofthe second 
History. This is due, on the one hand, to Sune 
the nearness of the period to the age of the Apostles, 
since the results of investigation in it will necessarily 
affect our views of their work and teaching; and, on 
the other hand, to the new influences which began 
during this period to affect the religion of Christ, and 
co-operated to form the Church and the theology of 
later times. 

The period, however, is involved in much obscu- 
rity, owing to the scantiness of the literary remains 
from it. Of the apostolic age the New Testa- 
ment enables us to form a fairly clear idea. 
Toward the close of the second century there begins, 
with the great work of Irenzeus against heresies, a 
chain of witnesses, from whom we may obtain abun- 
dant testimony to the history of both the faith and order 

1 


Its obscurity. 


2 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


of the Church; but from the intermediate period our 
witnesses are few. Not that it was barren of literary 
productions; on the contrary, if all the works which 
issued from orthodox and heretic had been preserved, 
the Christian literature of the period would suffice 
probably to settle most of the now vexed questions con- 
cerning it. On the heretical side some of the Gnostics 
were voluminous writers.1 On the orthodox side there 
appears to have been during the earlier part of the 
period less literary activity. A few letters and a brief 
manual (if the “Teaching of the Apostles” may be 
roughly classed in this period), and one or two religious 
romances,” are all that have been left to us, — though 
had only the work of Papias, entitled “Exposition of 
the Oracles of the Lord,’ been preserved, we should 
doubtless have been spared the necessity of much of 
the recent investigation into the origin and authority of 
the Gospels. Later in the century, however, the stream 
of apologetic literature began, directed either against 
assaults on Christianity by Jews or Pagans, or against 
heretical perversions of the faith. The earliest apol- 
ogists, Quadratus and Aristides, are indeed assigned 
by Eusebius? to the reign of Hadrian; but it was 
under Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius that the 
defences of the Christians became frequent and elabo- 
rate. Aristo and Justin defended Christianity against 
Judaism; while the latter, followed by Tatian, Athe- 
nagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, and Melito of Sardis, 


1 Cf. Iren. adv. Her. iii. 12; Tert. de Prescr. 38. 

2 The Pastor of Hermas, and the Testaments of the XII. Pa- 
triarchs. The latter is now generally dated before the second 
Jewish war; cf. Sinker’s Testamenta, XII. Patrr. The critical 
views are summarized in Dr. Warfield’s article in Presb. Reyv., 
January, 1880. 

3 H. E. iv. 38. 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. a 


argued the truth of the new religion against polytheism 
and philosophy, and demanded its recognition by the 
State.1 Meanwhile Hegesippus? had made the first 
attempt at an ecclesiastical chronicle, and the growth 
of heresy had begun to call forth defences of orthodoxy 
within the Church itself. But that many more Chris- 
tian writings of this period have been lost than those 
which have been in whole or in part preserved, is evi- 
dent from those mentioned by Eusebius in the fourth 
book of his History. The period, therefore, was far 
from being barren of literary productions. Only a few 
of these, however, have escaped the ravages of time, 
and we are left to feel our way in the darkness by the 
aid of the broken monuments and scattered fragments 
that yet remain. 

But none the less, perhaps all the more, do the first 
three quarters of the second century call for ts stuay 
repeated investigation by the student of demanded: 
Christianity ; and this for several reasons. 

I. The scarcity of its literary remains has made 
possible in modern times a number of critical theories 
of the origin and early development of | 3, ioa- 
Christianity which are not only in conflict em critical 

x Se Ἶ 7 theories of 
with the traditional view but often with each the origin of 
other. Without passing judgment on the ΑἸ ον κῃ; ἢ 
truth or falsity of these theories, it is evident that but 
for the scantiness of the historical records such varieties 
of view would not be possible. Amid the scattered 
fragments of early Christian literature it is compara- 
tively easy to find room in which to prolong the alleged 


1 The anonymous Epistle to Diognetus, while certainly not by 
Justin, is probably to be referred to about the middle of the 
second century. 

2 Kus. ἘΠῚ E. iv. 8, 11, 21, 22. 


4 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


process of the formation of Christianity. Those who 
assume that its rise must be conceived as a natural 
development have believed it possible to show that 
the final result was not attained till the middle of 
the second century. Starting with the assertion that 
original Christianity was divided into two hostile, or 
at least separate, parties, they have far more easily ob- 
tained the time necessary for the supposed fusion of 
these into the Catholic Church than would have been 
possible if more of the books of whose existence we 
know had been preserved. At least these books would 
in all probability have settled the question, pro or con, 
decisively. In their absence, the few letters of the 
apostolic fathers (written for local or personal objects), 
the lately recovered “Teaching of the Apostles,” to- 
gether with the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, the 
“Shepherd ” of Hermas, and fragments of lost writings 
preserved by later authors, must be our only guides 
until the period of the Apologists, the middle of the 
century, has been reached. Yet these critical theo- 
ries have claimed to be scientific reconstructions of 
primitive Christian history. Their truth or falsity in- 
volves the supernatural character of the Christian re- 
ligion. Difficult as the task may be to refute what 
is claimed to be proved by criticism based on such 
scanty sources, the necessity of investigating these 
sources is imperative for all who would justly estimate 
the worth of either the theories themselves or their refu- 
tations. Finding,as we do when we enter upon these 
studies, how much is made to depend on the phrase- 
ology and incidental allusions of the early writers, we 
shall realize how slowly conclusions should be formed 
when supported by such delicate and easily misused 
methods of proof, and we shall re-examine the more 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 5 


closely such evidence as there is because of its very 
meagreness. 

II. In connection also with these theories of the 
early history of Christianity, the history of the New 
Testament books and of their recognition by τς, py uy. 
‘the Church is inseparably bound up with the passion of 
study of the second century. At its close we Testament 
find Irenzeus,! for example, stoutly defend- a, 
ing the apostolic authority of our four Gospels, and 
maintaining that there never had been and could not 
be more than these four of a sacred character. Ter- 
tullian likewise declares it to be the Christian doctrine 
that the four Gospels possess apostolic authority, and 
he knows none authoritative but these four. The 
same fathers also recognized the authority of most of 
the other books now contained in our New Testa- 
ment;* while their silence as to two or three cannot 
be used to prove that these were rejected, or, even if 
they were unknown or doubted by these particular 
fathers, that they are not entitled to recognition by us. 
It is certain that in the last quarter of the second 
century the Church fully accepted a collection of books, 
corresponding with our New Testament, as apostolic 
and therefore authoritative, and was, except in a few 
minor particulars, fully agreed as to the limits of that 
collection, appealing to these books as standards of 
doctrine, and maintaining their apostolic authority on 
the ground of the unbroken testimony of the principal 
churches. But the question has been raised whether 
Trenzeus really expressed in this matter the traditional 
view of the churches, or a new opinion, reached by 


1 Adv. Heer. iii. 11. 8. 


2 Adv. Mare. iv. 2, 5. 
8 Cf. Reuss’s Hist. of the Canon, pp. 103-116. 


6 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


the Church of his own time as the result of its con- 
flict with heresy and the consolidation of its origi- 
nally separate parts. It is alleged by certain critics 
that our Gospels are in fact not authentic, but were com- 
posed, or at least thrown into their present form, in the 
second century itself, for the purpose of supporting one 
or other of the parties into which the early Church is 
said to have been divided, and that they thus represent 
the phases through which these parties passed. They 
are alleged to be only those which, out of a considerable 
number of early Gospels, the Church of the second 
century fixed upon as canonical because harmonious 
with the doctrinal views which had become established. 
It is said that the evidence of the earlier fathers shows 
that apostolic authority was but gradually recognized, 
while by the same gradual process the books of the 
New Testament were elevated to the position of in- 
spired works which the Old Testament already occupied. 
These views involve of course the inference that, as 
Christianity was itself the result of a natural develop- 
ment, the New Testament also was the product, not of 
inspiration, but of the mind of the Church as in the 
process of her establishment she came to look upon her 
doctrines and to read her beliefs back into the life of 
Jesus and his Apostles. To all this it has been rephed, 
that, while the Church’s apprehension of the limits of 
the Canon was a result gradually reached, yet from the 
beginning the authority of the Apostles, as teachers 
of divine truth, as well as the authoritative character 
of their writings, was clearly recognized ; that the au- 
thenticity.of the several books of the New Testament 
can be satisfactorily proved; and that therefore the 
conception of the Canon which prevailed at the close 
of the second century was not a new idea, but only the 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN'S TESTIMONY. 7 


more definite statement of that recognition of apos- 
tolic authority which existed from the days of Paul 
himself. 

Between these opposing views the decision evidently 
rests with the testimony of the second century ; and no 
student of the New Testament can afford to be without 
some personal acquaintance with the period which im- 
mediately followed that in which it was composed. 

III. Apart, however, from these questions which 
concern the very foundations upon which Christianity 
rests, the period of which we are speaking τη By the 
offers other problems of particular interest ae gi 
both to the historian and to the practical the Christian 
Christian. Mee ae 

Prominent among these is that of the origin of the 
Christian ministry. 

By comparing Irenzus, again, with the New Testa- 
ment, it becomes evident that considerable change had 
taken place in the organization of the Christian com- 
munities during the intervening time. In the first cen- 
tury the local churches appear to have been governed 
by a body of officers called “bishops” or “ elders,”? as- 
sisted by an order of “deacons.”? The term “elder” 
appears, indeed, to have been also used in a wider 
as well as in its official sense;? so that a man could 
have been an “elder,” but not a “bishop,” though he 
could not have been a bishop unless an elder.* Still, 
this body of officers were of equal rank. Ruling 
was the original purpose of their office; but soon, as 


POE Acta ims 590) χκ 7 58: 0 Dit... 5,7. 

2 Phil. i. 1; 1 Tim. iii. 8-13. 

5.1 “Time νὦ  7. 1 Pet. ve. 1. 

41 cannot accept Dr. Hatch’s theory of the origin of the 
Episcopate. Cf. Lect. VI. 


8 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


appears from the New Testament itself, the work of 
teaching was attached to it according as the spirit 
might qualify individual members of the official body.} 
Hardly, however, has the second century opened, when 
we find in at least some churches ‘a single president, 
alone called the “bishop,” surrounded by a college of 
“elders” as his advisers, and assisted in the active 
government and care of his church by the “deacons.” 2 
Thus the direction of the local churches seems to have 
been early appropriated by one presiding officer; a cen- 
tre of unity was formed in the person and office of 
the “bishop;” until in Irenzeus? all remembrance of the 
earlier arrangement seems to have been lost, and that 
writer speaks of the first presiding bishops of the prin- 
cipal churches of Christendom as having been appointed 
to office by the Apostles. Not yet, indeed, had the 
name “elder” ceased to be applied to the bishop,* nor 
were the two clearly regarded as distinct offices ;° 
not yet had the Christian ministry been clothed with 
sacerdotal dignity ; but the growth is very evident from 
the college of equal bishops portrayed by the New 
Testament to the influential chief officer of a century 
later, who had largely monopolized the functions of the 
original body, and who, in proportion to the prominence 
of the city of whose church he was the head, repre- 
sented ecclesiastical tradition and exercised ecclesiasti- 
cal power. 

IV. Then, too, the period before us becomes of ex- 
ceeding interest inasmuch as in its writers we may first 


11 Tim. vy. 12512) Dimsik 2: 

2 Cf. The Epistles of Ignatius. 

8 Cf. Adv. Her. iii. 8. 

4 Cf. Iren. to Victor, Eus. H. E. v. 24. 
5 Tren. iii. 2. 2 and 3. 3. 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 9 


recognize the mingling of philosophy with the doctrines 
of Christianity. There can scarcely be said to be a trace 
of the influence of current philosophy in cre- py pocance 
ating the beliefs of the Apostles. They dis- of shennan 
tinctly declare that the wisdom of this world phy and 

is vain’ Already, indeed, was the young res ae Hite ie 
church imperilled by teachers who gave speculations 
under the guise of Christian phrases; but such teachers 
were condemned and denounced. “ Beware,” wrote Paul, 
“lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain 
deceit.”?. Christianity was proclaimed as self-sufficient, 
as a revelation from God, dogmatic in its teaching, and 
needing no support from the conclusions of human 
reason ; and though it really contained a philosophy of 
its own, and though it was in sympathy with not a few of 
the conclusions to which uninspired reason had attained,3 
it felt no need of the pagan philosophy of the day to 
form its doctrines. But as the new religion came into 
closer contact and conflict with pagan thought, it was 
inevitable that the latter should affect it in various ways. 
On the one hand, as the New Testament already shows, 
philosophical speculations began to be mingled with 
Christian ideas, or to be clothed in the new vestments 
of Christian language. For this tendency Jewish Alex- 
andrianism and Cabalism had prepared the way; and 
the Gnostic systems, which reached their height in the 
middle of the second century, produced a total perver- 
sion of the simple Gospel of the Apostles. On the other 
hand, about the same time, pagan philosophy began to 
be aware of the existence and progress of the “new 
superstition,” and to direct arguments against it; while 
orthodox Christianity in its turn began to attempt the 

1 1 Cor. i. 19-21. 2 Col. ii. 8. 
2 Cf. Lect. IV. 


10 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


solution of some of the great problems which its own 
existence and its relation to the former history of the 
world suggested to thoughtful minds. Claiming to be 
the only true religion, it was forced to say how it 
regarded other religions and other types of thought. 
Freed from connection with Judaism, it was forced to 
declare its attitude toward previous pagan ethics and 
philosophy. Some of the Christian writers, emphasiz- 
ing the newness of their religion, sought to show the 
failure of all pagan philosophy to satisfy the mind and 
of all pagan religions to elevate life. Others, impressed 
with the wniversality of their religion and conceiving it 
as the revelation of eternal truth, sought to show the 
affiliation with it of whatever was noblest in pagan 
thought and ethics. Thus in various ways Christianity 
and philosophy came into contact. The contact affected, 
well or ill as we may judge, the definitions of doctrine ; 
produced division in the Church, but caused that portion 
which clung to the apostolic teaching to realize more 
perfectly the unity and the significance of the faith; 
widened men’s thoughts, yet often perverted the Gos- 
pel; in short, created the first phase of the long effort 
of reason to explain and of faith to apprehend the 
contents of revelation. 

V. Finally, mvolved in all of these discussions 
there is presented the question of how far and by what 
V. Bythe means the Christian communities had become 
problem of externally a unit. There can be no doubt 
the Church. that much progress had been made since the 
apostolic age in giving expression to the original moral 
and spiritual unity of believers, both by formulating 
their faith and by developing the conception of the 
Church. At the end of the second century there ex- 
isted the idea of a Catholic (in the sense of orthodox) 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 11 


Church} membership with which was often regarded as 
essential to salvation, and the distinguishing features 
of which were fidelity to the apostolic doctrine and 
the regular succession of bishops from the Apostles. 
Evidently the progress and the conflicts of Christianity 
had united the scattered communities of believers into 
what was practically an external association. The pil- 
lars of this society were the churches of the principal 
cities, which had been founded by Apostles and which 
preserved, through a direct line of bishops and presby- 
ters, the apostolic tradition. Of these the most conspic- 
uous and influential was the Church of Rome. Not 
that these churches had been as yet formally welded 
into one external organization. They were only united 
by a common faith and order, a common danger and 
hope. But the idea of the universal Church as a vis- 
ible society with a definite creed and a prescribed or- 
ganization was predominating, and it is important to ask 
by what causes had this state of things been brought 
about. Was this Catholic Church the result, as some 
affirm, of a compromise, consciously or unconsciously 
made, between parties originally opposed to one another; 
or was it the result of the natural growth of Gentile 
Christianity, of the spirit and needs of the age and the 
conflicts with paganism and heresy? It would appear 
to be of great use, in view of present movements toward 
the unification of Christendom, to study carefully the 
original idea of the Church, the nature of its earliest 
unity, and the historical progress in ancient times to- 
ward the expression thereof in outward forms. 


In view of these questions belonging to the first three 
quarters of the second century, I propose to examine 
1 Cf. e. g. Iren. iii. 4. 1. 


19 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


afresh the testimony of one of the most important wit- 
nesses from that period whose writings are still acces- 
Object of — sible. This is Justin Martyr; and a brief 
these lec- : : 

tures. sketch of the man and his works will enable 
us to perceive his great value as a witness to early 


Christianity. 


Our knowledge of the life of Justin is derived almost 
entirely from the notices scattered through his own 
The lifeof Writings; for Eusebius does little more than 
Justin. collect, as we may do, what Justin says about 
himself. He was a native of Flavia Neapolis, a city 
founded not far from the ruins of ancient Sychem and 
named in honor of Vespasian. It was the same place 
which is now known as Nablts. Justin was conse- 
quently a Samaritan by birth ;? but his language makes 
it clear that his family was not of Samaritan but of 
purely Gentile descent.2 Probably his immediate an- 
cestors were colonists who had settled in the new city 
shortly after its establishment. 

His birth can only be approximately placed in the 
closing years of the first or the beginning of the second 
century. Some older critics placed it as early 
as 89 A.D. Epiphanius* declares that Jus- 
tin was martyred under Hadrian when only thirty years 
of age; but as the date thus given for his martyrdom is 
certainly wrong, so the age assigned the martyr is wholly 
improbable. We only know that Justin, as Eusebius 


His birth. 


Lvs oa aa 

2 Ap. ii. 15. 

® Ap. i. 53; Dial. 41, 64, 120, 122, 130. 

4 Her. xlvi. 1. Epiphanius states that Justin died under Rus- 
ticus the prefect, and when Hadrian was emperor; thus showing, 
since Rusticus was prefect A. D. 163-167, that his statement is 
confused and unreliable. 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 13 


relates, “flourished” at Rome under Antoninus, and 
that he was probably martyred under Marcus Aurelius,? 
from which it is natural to infer that he was born about 
the beginning of the century, not far from the time 
when Saint John passed away. He thus belonged to 
the second generation after the Apostles, and lived at 
a period when the remembrance of their teaching was 
still strong and clear in the mind of the Church. 

When Justin came to manhood, he gave himself with 
enthusiasm to the pursuit of truth. In the opening chap- 
ters of the Dialogue with Trypho, he gives |. oa, 
a graphic account of his early efforts to find in philoso- 
intellectual peace in the popular philosophic re 
schools of the day. From his very youth he seems to 
have been of an earnest and religious type of mind, —a 
type which was not uncommon in that age of transi- 
tion from the old to the new, — and this occasioned his 
dissatisfaction with the teachings of philosophy. He 
found the Stoic instructor to whom he first joined him- 
self unable to give him any knowledge of God. He 
found the Peripatetic, to whom next he went, more con- 
cerned about the fee than about the truth. He learned 
from the Pythagorean, whom next he sought, that a 
long course of discipline in music, astronomy, and ge- 
ometry was necessary to enable the soul to apprehend 
spiritual and invisible realities. Finally, he became a 
disciple of Plato, and thought that he had indeed found 
“wings for his mind” in the “contemplation of ideas,” 
and that he would soon attain the end of the Platonic 
philosophy, and “look upon God.” It was while a Pla- 


1 ἘΠῚ De ha fh | 

2 Cf. Eus. H. E. iv. 16, with iv. 14 and 18. On the date of 
Justin’s birth, ef. Barth. Aubé (Saint Justin, philosophe et martyr, 
p- 7), who places it in the first decade of the second century. 


14 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


tonist that he became a Christian; but he passed over to 
the new religion without any violent rupture with his 
previous love of philosophy. To him, as we shall see, 
Christianity was the true philosophy, the absolute truth, 
in the reception of which alone earnest minds could find 
peace. And therefore, after he became a Christian, he 
did not cease to be a philosopher. He always wore the 
philosophic mantle. He appears, like other philosophic 
teachers of the day, to have moved from city to city to 
spread his doctrines. Like others, also, he gravitated to 
Rome, where he became actively engaged in teaching 
and defending Christianity to all whom he could reach. 
There is nothing to show that he ever held any ecclesi- 
astical office. He was rather a philosophical evangelist. 
He gathered pupils about him, more after the style of 
the philosopher than of the Christian minister. But 
that he was highly influential in his own day, as well 
His infu- 88 honored by posterity, is attested by the ref- 
ΣΝ erences to him and to his works in writers so 
soon following as Irenzeus? and Tertullian. He distin- 
euished himself in controversy with the powerful heret- 
ical teachers who had, like himself, drifted to Rome, 
and who were at that very time sowing the seeds of 
discord in the Christian Church. He engaged in public 
debate with the Cynic philosopher, Crescens, of whom he 
speaks with an acrimony which at least shows that the 
debate had been a sharp one,‘ and who, Tatian tells us, 


1 Dial. 1. 2 ἀν Ὁ: 25. Ν: 20: ὦ: 

3 Adv. Valent. 5. 

4 Ap. ll. 3. Κρήσκεντος τοῦ prio dou καὶ φιλοκόμπου. 

5 Ad Gree. 19. Eusebius (H. E. iv. 16) states that Crescens 
actually brought about Justin’s death; but his statement is evi- 
dently an inference from Justin’s own language (Ap. ii. 3), where 
he says that he expects Crescens to secure his death, and from 
Tatian’s remark that Crescens “endeavored to inflict on Justin, 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 15 


plotted to secure the death of his Christian antagonist. 
Tatian himself, famous afterward as a heretic, and still 
more famous as the author of the first harmony of the 
Gospels, was a hearer! or disciple? of Justin’s; and not 
till after the martyrdom of the master did the pupil 
venture to express his peculiar views. Thus we may 
imagine the meagre outline of Justin’s life filled up 
with varied and courageous activities. With some in- 
tervals,’ during one of which the dialogue with Trypho, 
if historical, occurred, he continued to reside in the 
capital until the early years of the reign of Marcus Au- 
relius, when, according to the testimony of 
antiquity, he suffered martyrdom under the 
prefect Junius Rusticus. Recent researches show that 
Rusticus held the prefecture of Rome A. D. 163-167.4 
It is thus evident that Justin, even before his con- 
version, belonged to the class of sincere seekers after 


His death. 


and indeed on me, the punishment of death.” Tatian’s language, 
however, rather implies that Crescens had failed in his plots, 
and the Martyrology makes no mention of him. Cf. Von Engel- 
hardt’s Das Christenthum Justins des Martyrers, p. 75 (who fol- 
lows Daniel and Volkmar). Eusebius makes the same statement 
in the Chronicon, though he there places Justin’s death in 152. 
Harnack (Die Uberlieferung der Griechischen Apologeten, Leip- 
zig, 1882, p. 142, note) supposes that Eusebius found in Julius 
Africanus a reference under 152 to the trouble caused Justin by 
Crescens and which partly led to the writing of the Apology, 
and that Eusebius understood it to mean that Crescens had then 
brought about Justin’s death. 

1 Tren. i. 28. 1. 2 Hippol. Refut. viii. 9. 

8 In the Martyrology, Justin is represented as saying, “I live 
above one Martinus at the Timiotinian Bath; and during the 
whole time (and I am now living at Rome for the second time) I 
am unaware of any other meeting than his.” This at least shows 
the early tradition of Justin’s travels. 

4 Cf. Borghesi (Euvres Completes), cited by Otto, Justini 
Opera, tom. ii. p. 268. 


16 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


truth, and still more particularly to the number of 
seekers after God. It may be a question whether his 
Niaeckar later Platonism does not color his statement! 
after truth. of objections to the rival schools of philos- 
ophy. But the current philosophy of the day, so far as 
it was spiritual at all, was theological in its character ;? 
and the best minds of even the pagan world felt that 
God, though abstractly conceived, was the supreme end 
of knowledge. Of this interesting and significant phase 
of philosophic thought, this conscious yearning after 
Deity, hampered by metaphysical limitations which 
made Deity appear as only the transcendent cause 
and source of all things, Justin was a type; and in 
his Christian writings we recognize the same sincer- 
ity and earnestness of which his earlier life afforded 
indications. 

He gives an account of his conversion in the intro- 
duction to the Dialogue with Trypho. He tells us that 
His conver. When deep in the study of Plato he one day 
she went out to the seashore to meditate,? and 
there met a man, of venerable appearance, who-engaged 
him in conversation. Their conversation fell into the 
subject dearest to both; namely, the search for truth. 
In reply to the stranger’s question, Justin defined phi- 
losophy as “the knowledge of that which really exists, 
and a clear perception of the truth;” and happiness, as 


1 Dial. 3. 2 Cf. Lect. IV. 

8 The place of his conversion is quite uncertain. He calls it 
“our city.” Some have supposed Ephesus; others Flavia Neapo- 
lis; but the latter was too far from the sea to answer the descrip- 
tion. If we suppose that it was Ephesus, and that the dialocue 
with Trypho also took place there, we may infer that in early life 
Justin had made that city his home. The fact has some bearing 
on his acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel, and his familiarity 
with Alexandrian speculations. Cf. Lectt. ΤΥ. and V. 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 17 


“the reward of such knowledge and wisdom;”? and 
God, as “that which always maintains the same nature, 
and in the same manner, and is the cause of all other 
things.” Thereupon the stranger, in quite a Socratic 
manner, forced the young Platonist to concede that the 
knowledge of God depends on the moral qualifications 
of the soul, rather than on either the nature of the soul 
itself, or its reminiscence of a previous existence ; and 
argued that the soul is not naturally immortal, but 
dependent for continuance of life on the will of God. 
Having thus undermined Justin’s confidence in his 
philosophical teachers, the stranger pointed him to the 
Hebrew prophets as more ancient than the philosophers, 
and more entitled to credence, since they “spake by the 
Divine Spirit, and foretold events which would take 
place, and which are now taking place.” “Their writ- 
ings,” he said, “are still extant, and he who has read 
them is very much helped in his knowledge of the 
beginning and the end of things, and of those matters 
which the philosopher ought to know.” Forthwith, 
says Justin, “a flame was kindled in my soul, and a 
love of the prophets and of those men who are the 
friends of Christ possessed me; and whilst revolving 
his [the old man’s] words in my mind, I found this 
philosophy alone to be safe and profitable. Thus and 
for this reason I am a philosopher.”? Now, it is ques- 


1 Dial. 8. φιλοσοφία μὲν ... ἐπιστήμη ἐστὶ τοῦ ὄντος Kal τοῦ 
ἀληθοῦς ἐπίγνωσις, εὐδαιμονία δὲ ταύτης τῆς ἐπιστήμης καὶ τῆς σοφίας 
γέρας. 

2 τὸ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως ἀεὶ ἔχον καὶ τοῦ εἶναι πᾶσι τοῖς ἄλλοις 
αἴτιον, τοῦτο δὴ ἐστιν ὁ Θεός. In the preceding question, “ Θεὸν δὲ 
σὺ τί καλεῖς :" Thirlby and Aubé read τὸ ὄν for Θεὸν. Otto, how- 
ever, retains Θεὸν, and in either case the ultimate meaning of the 
question is the same. 

8 Dial. 3-8. 


18 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


tionable if this narrative was meant by the author to 
be really historical. Its unusually careful composition, 
and its evident imitation of the Platonic Dialogues, as 
well as the character of the argument itself, suggest 
that it may have been intended to be a vivid portrayal 
of the course of thought by which Justin passed over, 
or would at least afterwards have passed over, from 
Platonism to Christianity! Probably, however, there 
was a basis of fact in the story ; but whether this were 
so or not, the narrative clearly exhibits not only Jus- 
tin’s continued fondness for Platonism, but also the 
fact, to which all his writings testify, that for him 
Christianity was the completion of philosophy, and the 
end to which all former systems, so far as they con- 
tained truth, naturally tended. 

In the second Apology,? Justin declares that he was 
led to embrace Christianity by beholding the fearlessness 
of death which the Christians displayed. He could not 
believe that men who went cheerfully to such a doom 
could be the wicked people that they were represented 
to be. This account, however, is not inconsistent with 
the story given in the Dialogue. We may suppose 
that his interest having been aroused in “the proph- 
ets and those men who [were] the friends of Christ,” 
he observed the Christians more closely, and was 
further convinced of their sincerity, and of the power 
of their religion? At any rate, whatever was the 
order of events, the conduct of the Christians and 
the study of the prophets were the two means of 
Justin’s conversion. 

Here it is proper to remark that while the time of 


1 So Aubé, Saint Justin, p. 20. 
» Chapter xii. 
8 So Von Engelhardt, Das Christenthum Justins, pp. 80-84. 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 19 


Justin’s principal activity at Rome is undisputed, yet 
the details of the chronology of his life Plan Fak 
sent many debated and difficult questions. nology of 

Ἢ ὃ his life. 

It is probable that he did not become a 
Christian until early in the reign of Antoninus. The 
account which he himself gives of his previous search 
for truth implies that not until he had reached man- 
hood did he find peace through believing in Christ. 
Moreover, according to Syncellus, the Chronicon of Eu- 
sebius had, under the year 140 A. D., the statement that 
then “Justin was called,’1—a statement which Euse- 
bius probably took from the earlier Chronicle of Julius 
Africanus, and which, despite the fact that Eusebius in 
the same place erroneously assigns the Apology to that 
year, coincides with his evident belief, as expressed in 
his History,? that Justin was still a heathen in Hadri- 
an’s reign, and probably indicates the date of his con- 
version.? We may assume, then, that the Apologist was 
already in middle life at the time of his conversion ; 
and if so, he must have immediately thrown himself 

1 Ἰουστῖνος προσηγορεύθη, cited by Harnack, Die Uberlieferung, 
etc., p. 143, note. 

25H. ἘΠ iv. 8. 

3 So Harnack, Die Uberlieferung, etc., p.143,note. Aubé (Saint 
Justin, p. 24) thinks that the statement of Ap. i. 31, that “ Barcho- 
chebas gave orders that Christians alone should be led to cruel 
punishments,” implies that then (A. D. 132-136) Justin was a Chris- 
tian. He admits, however, that Eusebius (H. E. iv. 8) understood 
that at the time of the apotheosis of Antinous (A. D. 131), Justin 
was still a heathen (cf. Ap. i. 29). Harnack thinks that both 
Eusebius and the Apology prove that Justin was a heathen in 
Hadrian’s reign. To my mind, there is nothing in the Apology 
to show how long Justin had been a Christian; but the introduc- 
tion to the Dialogue proves that his conversion was after he had 
reached manhood. Harnack well exposes the errors of Eusebius 
in his chronology of Justin’s life; and his explanation of the 
Chronicon, as quoted by Syncellus, seems to me plausible. 


20 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


into the thickest part of the battle in behalf of the cause 
which he had just espoused. 

On the other hand, the traditional report that Justin 
was martyred under Marcus Aurelius may be accepted 
with reasonable confidence. It is not only given by 
Eusebius in his History,! but is also independently sup- 
ported by the testimony of Epiphanius ;? and the Mar- 
tyrology, which relates the death of Justin and his 
companions, and which is an unusually trustworthy 
document for one of its kind, ascribes the martyrdom, 
as Epiphanius does, to the prefecture of Rusticus? We 
may therefore assume that for about twenty-five years 
Justin continued to teach and defend Christianity; 
and that at some time in the period covered by the 
years A.D. 163-167 he sealed his testimony with his 
blood. 

The time of Justin’s arrival at Rome is determined by 
the date assigned to the great Apology. Fixing that, 


i H. E. iv. 16. 

2 Her. xlvi.1. As already observed (cf. above, p. 12), Epi- 
phanius erroneously places Justin’s death under Hadrian. Never- 
theless, his mention of Rusticus, and the absence of any reference 
to Crescens, show a tradition independent of Eusebius. 

8 For an account of the manuscript in which the Μαρτύριον is 
preserved, cf. Otto, Justini Opera, tom. ii. Proleg. See also, Har- 
nack’s Die Uberlieferung, etc., p. 193. Eusebius, in the Chronicon, 
contradicts his History, and assigns Justin’s death to 1532. Har- 
nack (Ibid., p. 142, note) supposes that Eusebius again misunder- 
stood the language of his source (Julius Africanus). If so, his 
assignment in his History of the martyrdom to the reign of Marcus 
Aurelius would seem the more to confirm the antiquity of the tra- 
dition. Dr. Hort is quoted by Westcott (Hist. of Canon, p. 88, 
note 4) as assigning Justin’s death to 148; but I have not been 
able to obtain his article (Journ. of Class. and Sacred Philology, 
iii. 139). The Martyrology states that Justin was beheaded; and 
the oldest church tradition assigned his death to the first of June. 
A later tradition made him die like Socrates. 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 21 


for reasons of which I will speak presently, in the year 
147 (or 148), it is certain that the author had already 
dwelt several years in the capital,andhadbeen ,. ο, τ 
actively engaged in theological controversy. arrival at 
He singles out Marcion as the most conspicu- emt 

ous living heretic.1 He says of him that he “is even 
at this day alive and teaching... and has caused many 
of every nation to speak blasphemies.” He refers 
to a book of his own which he had already written - 
against all the heresies that had existed? and of which 
his book against Marcion in particular, which is quoted 
by Irenzeus,? may have been a part. Justin had thus 
become a vigorous champion of the orthodox faith, and 
had especially contended against that dangerous heresy 
which had recently been transferred from Pontus to 
Rome, and which threatened most seriously the peace 
and unity of the Church,? so much so that in the fol- 


1 Ap. i. 26, 58. 

2 Ap. i. 26. σύνταγμα κατὰ πασῶν τῶν γεγενημένων αἱρέσεων. 

8 πρὸς Μαρκίωνα σύνταγμα. Adv. Her. iv. 6. 2, and, perhaps, 
v. 26. 2. 

4 So Weizsiicker, “ Die Theologie des Mirtyrers Just.,” Jahrb. 
fiir Deutsche Theol. 1867, p. 61, note 2. Harnack (Die Uberlief- 
erung, etc., p. 142) makes them separate works. 

5 Justin’s Apology has been used to fix the date of Marcion’s 
activity in Rome, and the latter in turn to fix the date of the 
former. Aubé (Saint Justin, p. 39) concludes from the notices 
in Eusebius (H. E. iv. 10) as to Marcion’s appearance in Rome, 
that the Apology was at least written after 142, and probably 
about 150. Previously Volkmar (“Die Zeit Justins des Mir- 
tyrers,’ Theologische Jahrbiicher, Tiibingen, 1855) had also fixed 
the date of Justin’s writings from Marcion’s coming to Rome, 
assigning the Syntagma to 145 at the earliest, and the Apology 
to 147. Harnack, on the other hand (Zur Quellenkritik der 
Geschichte des Gnosticismus, p. 25), concludes that Justin only 
knew of Marcion’s work in Asia, on the ground that his de- 
scriptions of Marcion’s errors do not show the influence of 


22 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


lowing generation he was as famous for being the op- 
ponent and historian of heresy as he was for being an 
Apologist. 

We may thus certainly affirm that early in the reign 
of Antoninus Justin fixed his residence at Rome. It was 
Tietonuor a time and a place which afforded large oppor- 
putes a tunity for his active mind and polemical spirit. 
work afforded The Roman Empire was at the height of its 
him at Rome. : : 

splendor, and after the conquests of Trajan 
had enlarged its hmits until nothing more remained to 
be conquered, had enjoyed under Hadrian, and expected 
still more to enjoy under Antoninus, the blessings of 
peace. Intellectual activity was quickened. The rest- 
less curiosity of Hadrian and the philosophic culture 
of the Antonines stimulated the growth of intelligence 
and allowed the utmost liberty of thought. Into Rome 
there poured an increasing flood of teachers and scholars, 
even as into her also poured the commerce and the trib- 
ute of the world. It was the lull before the storm. It 
was the high noon of Imperial greatness preceding the 
decline of the long Roman day ; and though the causes 
were already at work which shattered the splendid 
spectacle, though below the outward prosperity the 
people were impoverished by taxation, and though be- 
low the fair lives of the Antonines society was steeped 
in depravity, nevertheless the prospect was such as to 
seem to merit the epithet of “golden age.” 


Cerdo. Von Engelhardt (Das Christenthum Justins, p. 73) thinks 
that Marcion cannot be used to determine the date of the Apol- 
ogy, since it is not clear whether Justin referred to his activity 
in Asia or Rome. Justin’s references to Marcion, however, seem 
certainly to imply an activity of the heretic and a spread of the 
heresy so considerable as to be scarcely applicable to the period 
before Marcion was separated from the Roman church. 
1 Cf, Irenzus, cited above. Tert..adv. Valent. 5. 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 23 


The Christian Church at the capital was affected 
by these circumstances. We shall study hereafter the 
attitude of the Government toward her; but we may 
here remark that despite occasional persecution and 
local outrages and general contempt, she had not for a 
long time suffered severely. The Roman church had 
already become famous throughout the brotherhood for 
her charity, and hence, we may suppose, counted not a 
few wealthy people in her membership. Her influence, 
as the church of the metropolis, was already great. Into 
her poured the streams of Christian thought from all 
the churches of the Empire. She was the focus where 
the rays of Christian light converged. Already it was 
true, as Irenzeus said a little later, that to her on ac- 
count of her pre-eminence !— a pre-eminence which was 
due to her situation in the capital — did the faithful 
from everywhere resort ; so that she was already becom- 
ing the mirror of Christendom, and her voice the clear- 
est utterance of the universal faith. Thither came the 
leaders of speculation as well as the witnesses of apos- 
tolic tradition. Valentinus and Cerdo began to teach 
their heresies at Rome in the Episcopate of Hyginus. 
Marcion flourished under Pius and Anicetus. There 
were to be found representatives of nearly every type 
of professed Christianity. Even Ebionism could make 
itself heard in the church of the capital. Gentile Chris- 
tians who would have no fellowship with observers of 
the law; Jewish Christians who would have no fellow- 
ship with those who did not observe the law ; and be- 
tween these two extremes, the greater number of both 
Gentile and Jewish believers who strove, with charity 
toward one another, to walk in the spirit and doctrine of 
the Apostles, caused the Christian community at Rome, 


1 ἐς Propter potiorem principalitatem.” — Adv. Hear. iii. 3. 2. 


24 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


even at this early period, to offer an attractive field to 
the controversialist as well as to the earnest missionary. 
What place more likely to be sought by our philosophi- 
cal evangelist ? Where could he find a wider arena for 
the combat with error in which he was anxious to en- 
gage? From what portion of the ancient church is 
testimony more important than from this ? 

As might have been expected, Justin became an 
author; but of the many works which in various 
The writings Periods have passed under his name, only 
of Justin. three remain which can certainly be con- 
sidered his. Eusebius mentions? nine books by Justin 
of which he knew, and adds, “There are also many 
other works of his in the hands of many of our 
brethren.” Of those named by him none are now 
extant except the Apologies and the Dialogue with 
Trypho. Other works, indeed, two of which? bear the 
same titles as works mentioned by Eusebius, are found 
in the manuscripts of Justin, but, on internal grounds, 
cannot be considered his. It is even probable that 
Eusebius himself was mistaken in several particulars of 
his life of Justin. He certainly had not read Justin’s 
work against heresies, for he quotes it only through 
Treneus.? He explicitly affirms that Justin wrote two 
Apologies, — one under Antoninus Pius, and the other 
under Marcus Aurelius. But not only were both the 
now extant Apologies certainly written under Antoni- 
nus, but Eusebius quotes from both of them as from the 
first Apology. It would thus appear that what are now 
known as the two Apologies of Justin were in Euse- 
bius’s time one; and that the second Apology, to which 


1H. E. iv. 18. 
2 περὶ μοναρχίας and πρὸς “Ἕλληνας. 
8 Cf. H. E. iv. 18. 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 25 


he refers, but from which he does not quote, was either 
a genuine work of Justin’s which has been lost, or else 
(and more probably) some other work of similar charac- 
ter which passed under Justin’s name In fact, Justin 
was so prominent a character in the remembrance of 
the later Church, that many writings were purposely or 
by mistake attributed to him. During the Middle Ages 
he was not known by his genuine writings at all, but 
by a number of these spurious ones? Our earliest 
manuscript of Justin’s works dates from the fourteenth 
century, and contains twelve? works alleged to have 


1 Tn H. E. ii. 13, Eusebius quotes from Ap. i. 26, as from Jus- 
tin’s “first defence addressed to Antoninus.” In iii. 26, he refers to 
the same passage as containing a notice of Menander. In iv. 8, 
he quotes Ap. ii. 12, as from “the Apology to Antoninus,” after 
having quoted, as from the same work, Ap. i. 29 and 31. In iv. 
11, 12, he says: “Justin, after having contended with great suc- 
cess against the Greeks, addressed also other works, containing a 
defence of our faith, to the Emperor Antoninus Pius and to the 
Senate of Rome. He also had his residence at Rome; but he 
shows who and whence he was in the following extracts in his 
Apology:” then follows Ap. 1. 1. In iv. 16, he says that Justin, 
“having given a second defence of our doctrine to the above- 
mentioned rulers [viz., Aurelius and Lucius Verus],” was mar- 
tyred. Then he quotes Ap. ii. 3, as “in the Apology already 
quoted (ἐν τῇ δεδηλωμένῃ ἀπολογίᾳ), which seems to refer to his 
previous citations of the longer Apology. In iv. 17, he cites Ap. 
ii. 12, as from “the first Apology.” In iv. 18, enumerating Jus- 
tin’s books, he says: “There is a discourse of his, addressed to 
Antoninus Pius and his sons and the Roman Senate, in defence 
of our doctrines; also another work, comprising a defence of our 
faith, which he addressed to the emperor of the same name, An- 
toninus Verus [i.e., Marcus Aurelius], the successor of the pre- 
ceding.” Harnack (Die Uberlieferung, ete., pp. 172, etc.) argues 
with plausibility that the work now known as the Supplicatio of 
Athenagoras was mistakenly regarded by Eusebius as the second 
Apology of Justin. 

2 Cf. Harnack’s Die Uberlieferung, etc., pp. 148, ete. 

8 The work Ady. Gentiles is added in the manuscript as an 


26 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


come from his pen; and it has been only modern crit- 
icism which has by careful examination separated from 
out of these those which may be reasonably consid- 
ered genuine.t Most of the works contained in the 
manuscript are indeed easily condemned as spurious 
by their internal characteristics ;? and none are now 


appendix to the Confutatio Dogmatum Aristotelis, without any 
inscription. 

1 There exist only two complete manuscripts of Justin, — the 
Codex Regius Parisinus, 450, written in 1364; and the Codex 
Claromontanus (now Mediomontanus), which was taken in 1824 
from Paris to England, and which was written in 1541. Either 
the latter, however, was copied from the former, or both were 
from a common exemplar. Cf. Otto’s Justini Opera, tom. i. proleg. 
xx. ete. In both manuscripts the shorter Apology precedes the 
longer, and the latter is called δευτέρα. The text appears, by 
comparison with the quotations in Eusebius, to have been much 
corrupted (cf. Harnack’s Die Uberlieferung, p. 135, note). The 
works assigned to Justin by the Paris manuscript are, accord- 
ing to Otto: (1) Epistola ad Zenam et Serenam; (2) Cohortatio 
ad Gentiles; (3) Dialogus cum Tryphone; (4) Apologia Minor ; 
(5) Apologia Major; (6) De Monarchia; (7) Expositio recte 
fidei; (8) Confutatio dogmatum, to which the tract Ady. Gentiles 
is appended; (9) Questiones Christianorum ad Gentiles; (10) 
Questiones et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos; (11) Questiones 
Gentilium ad Christianos. 

2 Cf. Harnack, ibid., pp. 154, ete. The question of the spuri- 
ousness of most of these works is so well settled that I have not 
thought it necessary to discuss it. The Cohortatio most closely 
resembles Justin’s genuine writings; but the absence from it of 
the doctrine of the Logos is alone decisive the other way. More- 
over, Schiirer (Brieger’s Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengesch., ii. 3, p. 319) 
has pointed out the apparent dependence of the Cohortatio on 
Julius Africanus, and assigned it, therefore, to the middle of 
the third century. Donaldson (Hist. of Christian Lit., ii. 96) had 
already taken the same view, following Ashton (Justini Ph. et 
M. Apologiz, p. 294). More recently Volter (Zeitschr. fiir wis- 
sensch. Theol., 1883, pp. 180, etc.) has argued that the Cohor- 
tatio and Africanus drew from a common source (Justus of 
Tiberias), and that the Cohortatio is a work of the second cen- 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 27 


considered Justinian except the Apologies and the 
Dialogue. The genuineness of these is undisputed, and 
to them alone can we appeal to learn the testimony of 
Justin. One cannot but express a passing regret that 
his work against heresies, from which Irenzeus quoted 
and probably derived much of his own information upon 
the subject, and which would complete our knowledge 
of Justin’s testimony to early Christianity by bringing 
out plainly his attitude as an orthodox Christian to the 
teaching of the Apostles, has not escaped the ravages of 
time. 

The two extant Apologies of Justin form, then, per- 
haps the most notable monument of Christianity which 
has been preserved from the second century, The Apol- 
at least from before the time of Irenzus. °° 
By Eusebius, as has been already stated, both were 
probably regarded as one work; and that they practi- 
cally are such may be considered quite certain! The 
shorter was in all probability a sort of postscript to the 
longer, added because of certain events which had just 


tury, and probably the first part of the treatise περὶ ἀληθείας by 
Apollinaris of Hierapolis. As to the genuineness of the Dialogue, 
Prof. B. L. Gildersleeve (Introd. to his ed. of the Apologies of J. M., 
p- xxiii) writes: “‘ Apart from the historical allusions to the sec- 
ond century, apart from the testimony of Eusebius, apart from the 
general agreement with the Apologies in doctrine and thought and 
want of method, the language is evidently the same; and though 
there are slight variations in vocabulary, as might be expected 
from the difference of theme, these have little weight in compari- 
son with the remarkable coincidences in tricks of speech and 
irregularities of syntax.” 

1 Boll (Zeitschr. fiir histor. Theol., 1842) is quoted by Von 
Engelhardt (p. 77) as holding that the shorter Apology was the 
original conclusion of the larger; but as Von Engelhardt says, 
the present conclusion of the larger Apology is complete, and no 
place for the insertion of the shorter can be found in it, or indeed 
elsewhere. 


28 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


occurred. Like the longer, it betrays by its expressions 
that it was written in the reign of Antoninus, and 
by its references to the longer conclusively indicates 
that it was written shortly after.2 We regard it, there- 
fore, as a supplement to the longer Apology ; and if so, 
it becomes of some assistance in fixing the date at which 
both were written.? Certainly this was not 
far from the middle of the century. The 
author speaks of the Jewish war as recent,* and of 
Christ’s birth as having occurred one hundred and 
fifty years before. Both these, however, are elastic ex- 
pressions, and different critics have assigned the larger 
Apology to dates ranging from 198 to 150 a.p. But if 
the shorter Apology was written soon after the longer, 
a new element is introduced into the calculation, in- 
asmuch as it states that at the time of its composition 
Urbicus was prefect of Rome. Now, Q. Lollius Urbi- 
cus was the legate of Antoninus in Britain when the 
famous wall of Antoninus was constructed. This was 


Their date. 


1 Cf. Ap. ii. 2: “To thee, the Emperor.” In the subsequent 
reign, Aurelius and Lucius Verus were co-emperors till the death 
of the latter in 169. So, also, “ This judgment does not become 
the pious Emperor nor the philosophic Cesar, his son,” is conclu- 
sive for the reign of Antoninus. Soc. 15: “ Would that you also 
would for your own sakes judge worthily of piety and philosophy.” 

2 In Ap.ii. 4, “We have before stated that [God] takes pleasure 
in those who imitate his properties,” ete., probably refers to i. 10. 
In ii. 6, “ As we said before, he became man according to the coun- 
sel of God,” etc., is a clear reference to Ap. i., for in Ap. ii noth- 
ing as yet has been said of the incarnation. In ii. 8, “ We know 
Heracleitus, as we said before,’ seems to be a reference to i. 46. 

8 Most critics now take this view of the shorter Apology. Cf. 
Von Engelhardt, p. 77; Harnack (Die Uberlieferung, ete.), p. 145. 
Aubé (Saint Justin, pp. 67, ete.) still holds that the shorter Apol- 
ogy was that mentioned by Eusebius as offered to Marcus Aure- 
lius, and places its date late in the reign of Antoninus. 

4 Ap. i. 31; cf. also 1. 47. 5 Ap. i. 46. 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 29 


in 140 A. Ὁ. ; and several years may reasonably be sup- 
posed to have intervened before he became prefect of 
the capital.1 Without presuming to be exact, we may 
safely say that between 145 and 150 A.p., and most 
probably in 147 or 148, the Apologies were written ; 
and since the Dialogue refers? to the Apology, and yet 
still speaks® of the Jewish war as recent, it Date of the 
must have been composed shortly after.t Pilesue. 
This agrees very well with what we have already 
learned of the time of Justin’s conversion, and of his 
probable controversy with Marcion at Rome before ‘the 
composition of the Apology.® 


1 Not necessarily, however, seven or nine years, as Aubé (p. 70) 
insists on the statement of Julius Capitolinus that Antoninus gen- 
erally left his legates that length of time in the provinces. Even 
if it were so, however, Urbicus might have returned to Rome as 
early as 146, since he might have gone to Britain as early as 139. 

2 ς. 120. 8. cc. 1, 9; ef. cc. 16, 108. 

4 For Urbicus, cf. Aubé’s Saint Justin, pp. 68, ete. Aubé, 
however, introduces elements into the calculation which are unwar- 
ranted, and errs in saying that Antoninus took his third consul- 
ship in 145. Von Engelhardt (p. 78) follows Aubé, and is misled 
by him. See, also, the article in the Encycl. Britan., “ Wall of 
Antoninus.” 

5 All arguments on the date of the Apology, drawn from its 
opening address, are uncertain, because of the possibilities of 
textual corruption; yet as Aurelius was not fully associated in 
the government with Antoninus until 147, and as Lucius, who is 
described by Justin as a philosopher and lover of instruction, was 
born in 130, an earlier date for the Apology than 147 seems im- 
probable. On it, in fact, all the probabilities converge. If, on 
the other hand, as Harnack supposes (Die Uberlieferung, etc., 
p- 142, note), when Eusebius in the Chronicon assigned Justin’s 
death to 152, he was misled by a statement of Julius Africanus, 
that in that year Crescens gave Justin trouble (meaning thereby 
that in that year the Apology was written as a result of the 
debate between Justin and Crescens), there would be reason for 
accepting that date for its composition, since Julius Africanus 
would be likely to have known the facts. To this date there is 


30 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


These works, then, written at such a time and at 
such a place, demand our attention. Let us briefly 
observe their character and contents. 

The longer Apology has, according to our present 
text, this introduction: “To the Emperor Titus A¢lius 

Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Cesar 
Analysis of oa ; 5 ἢ 
the longer and to Verissimus,' his philosophic son, and 
Apoeey: 0 Lucius? the philosopher, by birth the 
son of Cesar? and adopted son of Pius, a lover of 
instruction, and to the sacred Senate, and to all the 
Roman people, in behalf of the men of every race who 
are unjustly hated and abused, I, Justin, the son of 
Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, who are of Flavia 
Neapolis, a city of Syria, in Palestine, — being one of 
them,— have made this address and petition.”* It 


no objection, except the references in the Apology and Dialogue 
to the Jewish war as recent, which make it undesirable to place 
the writings any later than possible; but Africanus may have 
referred to some subsequent action of Crescens against Justin, 
perhaps to the very plots of which Tatian speaks. 

1M. Aurelius Antoninus. Hadrian called him Verissimus, his 
original name having been Marcus Annius Verus. 

2 L. Ceionius Commodus, afterwards L. Aurelius Verus. 

8 That is, son of L. #lius Verus, who had been adopted by 
Hadrian, but died before the latter. 

4 Various parts of this address have been called in question 
by critics. Cf. Otto’s note. Eusebius (H. E. iv. 12) quotes it 
as above, except reading Καίσαρι Σεβαστῷ for Σεβαστῷ Καίσαρι. 
Some (Ritter, Volkmar, Cave, Uberwez) would read ᾿Αντωνίνῳ 
EvoeBei Σεβαστῷ καὶ Καίσαρι Oinpicoiow. Volkmar would change 
Εὐσεβεῖ Σεβαστῷ to Σεβαστῷ Ἐὐσεβεῖ, after many inscriptions and 
coins; but Otto cites others like our text. Volkmar also thinks 
καὶ Aovkim... παιδείας spurious; while others (Neander, Cave) 
read, instead of Λουκίῳ φιλοσόφῳ, Λουκίῳ φιλοσόφου Καίσαρος 
φύσει υἱῷ, on the ground that Lucius was only born in 130, and, 
while nominally Cesar, was really a private citizen (cf. Von En- 
gelhardt, p. 72). Otto, however, quotes Schnitzer to the effect 
that Justin could as well have called Lucius a philosopher as his 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 31 


opens (0. 2) with a bold appeal for justice, evidently 
imitating Plato’s Apology of Socrates. “Reason di- 
rects,” says Justin, “those who are truly pious and phi- 
losophical to honor and love only what is true.’ He 
will not flatter, and he does not fear. He simply asks 
for justice. He demands, therefore (3, 4), that men 
should not be punished merely for a name, but only 
after examination of their lives and conduct, and al- 
leges (5) that such unreasonable hatred as the Chris- 
tians experience could only be due to the instigation of 
demons, who, as they slew Socrates, now war against 
the incarnate Word Himself. Justin then (6-12) enu- 
merates three principal charges made against the Chris- 
tians, — namely, atheism, immorality, and disloyalty, — 
and proceeds briefly to meet them. Christians are not 
atheists, for they worship the true God, the Father of 
righteousness and virtue, together with the Son who 
came forth from Him to teach us, and the host of an- 
gels who follow and are like Him, and the Spirit of 
prophecy. They are not immoral; or if any be con- 
victed of crimes, they are willing that such should be 
punished. In fact, their refusal to lie in order to live 
should commend them to all thoughtful people. Their 
belief is innocent, however incredible it may be; while 
their rejection of the popular divinities and their spirit- 
ual worship and imitation of the Most High ought not 
to appear to philosophic rulers a crime. Finally, they 
are not disloyal, for the kingdom which they seek is a 
heavenly one. Hence they die the more willingly, that 
they may partake in it; and their doctrines would make 


licentious father; and remarks that the title “philosopher” was 
used very loosely, and that the added clause, “a lover of instruc- 
tion,” indicates of itself that Lucius was not a philosopher as 
Verissimus was. 


32 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


good citizens of all men. With this appeal for justice and 
refutation of slanders, Justin says that he might con- 
clude; but in the hope of convincing some of the actual 
truth of Christianity, he undertakes to show its positive 
worth and credibility. He begins to do this by describ- 
ing the reasonable worship which the Christians offer 
to God (13, 14), and by giving examples of the lofty 
ethical teaching of Christ (15-17), as well as by pro- 
ducing analogies between the Christian doctrines of 
immortality, resurrection and the end of the world and 
the teaching of nature and philosophy (18-20). He 
recites also some of the pagan fables about the sons of 
the gods and their marvellous exploits, to show how 
irrational was the honor bestowed on them, and how 
still more unreasonable it was for believers in these 
tales to persecute believers in the alleged facts of the 
life of Christ (21, 22). The object of this part of the 
Apology was to disarm unbelief and, by proving that 
Christianity was neither novel nor contemptible, to pre- 
pare for the positive argument in its favor. That argu- 
ment will, he says, aim to establish three points: first, 
that the teaching of Christ and the prophets is alone 
true, and is older than all other writers; second, that 
Jesus Christ was alone and in the proper sense begot- 
ten as a Son to God, being His Logos and First-born 
and Power,! and having become by His will a man, 
taught us these things for the conversion and resto- 
ration of the human race; third, that before Christ 
came, some, influenced by the demons, related through 
the poets mythological tales intended to travesty the 
future revelation (23). These were Justin’s main points 
in his defence of Christianity. The nature of Christ 

1°T, X. μόνος ἰδίως vids τῷ θεῷ γεγέννηται, λόγος αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχων 
καὶ πρωτότοκος καὶ δύναμις. 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 33 


as the incarnate divine Logos was the starting-point 
of his thought and the central truth by which Chris- 
tianity was commended and its relations to previous 
thought and life explained. As contained in the He- 
brew prophets, Christianity antedated all philosophy 
and all pagan religion. Whatever in them was true 
and good was derived from it, and whatever was evil 
was originated by the demons for the purpose of op- 
posing it. To establish, therefore, the antiquity of the 
prophets and the nature of Christ, was the chief aim 
of his argument. 

After descanting again on the unreasonableness of 
persecuting men who merely differ from others in re- 
ligious opinion and yet live pure lives, while idols of 
lust are worshipped, religions of other kinds permitted, 
impostors like Simon Magus and Menander honored, 
and heretics like Marcion allowed (24-29), Justin at 
last takes up the argument. This consists of proof of 
Christianity from the fulfilment of prophecy, and in- 
cludes a large portion of his book (30-53). He begins 
by giving an account of the prophets and of the preser- 
vation of their writings in the version of the Seventy, 
and relates that, centuries before Jesus lived, they 
predicted the main facts of his life and the mission of 
the Apostles to the world. Of these predictions he 
gives a number of examples, following for the most 

1 He cites predictions of Christ’s advent; His triumphal entry ; 
His “cleansing by His blood those who believe on Him;” His birth 
from a virgin in Bethlehem; His crucifixion; the preaching of the 
Gospel to the Gentiles; the call of men to repentance; Christ’s 
session in heaven; the hostility of the world to Christianity ; the 
desolation of Judea; Christ’s miracles; His rejection by the Jews 
and acceptance by the Gentiles; His humiliation, ascension, maj- 
esty, and second advent; and the future resurrection and judg- 
ment, —the certainty of the last two of which may, he says, be 


inferred from the fulfilment already of the other predictions. 
3 


34 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


part in his explanations of them that ingenious and 
arbitrary method of interpretation for which the ex- 
egetes of the day and especially those of Alexandria 
were famous, —a method which regarded the Old Tes- 
tament as either a prosaic writing beforehand of later 
history or else as oracular utterances of carefully con- 
cealed meaning. He explains also the different modes 
of prophecy, and defends belief in it against the charge 
of fatalism. He pauses to reply to the objection that 
since Christ came so late, those who lived before his 
coming were irresponsible, and does so by maintain- 
ing that the divine Logos was in the world from 
the beginning, and that men of every race who lived 
rationally! were really Christians, while those who 
lived irrationally ? were enemies of Christ, and wicked. 
From all these fulfilled predictions he concludes (53) 
that the Christian’s belief in Christ as the First-born 
of God and the universal Judge is completely justified. 
Justin next (54-58) endeavors to show that mythol- 
ogy was a device of the demons to imitate the future 
Christ, of whom they had learned from the prophets ; 
and he points out some of their attempts.2 One thing, 
however (55), they failed to understand, namely, the 
predictions of the Cross, although this is the greatest 
symbol of Christ’s power, as may be learned from its 
prevalence in nature and human life, as for instance in 
the shape of a ship’s sail, a farmer’s plough, the tools 
of the mechanic, and the features of the human body. 
To the same demoniacal source he refers also the rise of 
impostors, persecutions, and heretics in recent times 


1 μετὰ λόγου. 2 ἀνεὺ λόγου. 

8 Thus, e. ¢., Bacchus, the son of Jupiter and discoverer of the 
vine, was a travesty of Gen. xlix. 10: “He shall be the desire of 
the Gentiles, binding his foal to the vine.” AMsculapius was an 


imitation of the coming Healer, etc. 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 35 


(56-58). He then tries to show that Plato himself 
(59, 60) was directly dependent on Moses for his ac- 
count of the origin of the world and of the second and 
third powers in the universe. Then follows the closing 
part of the Apology (61-67), in which Justin describes 
Christian baptism, the celebration of the Eucharist and 
the proceedings at the weekly assemblies of the Chris- 
tians, for the purpose of removing the false impressions 
which were current among the populace. With a final 
appeal for at least liberty of opinion and a solemn re- 
minder of God’s judgment of all men, Justin concludes 
his Apology by appending Hadrian’s letter to Minucius 
Fundanus, a proconsul of Asia, in which that emperor 
directed that Christians should only be punished after 
a legal trial. The Apologist adds, however, that he de- 
pended not so much on Hadrian’s letter as on the justice 
of his cause. 

Thus the proof on which Justin relied in his argu- 
ment for Christianity was its fulfilment of prophecy. 
It should be carefully noticed that this was qs arev- 
not the ground on which he pleaded for the ™™" 
toleration of Christianity. For that he pleaded on the 
ground of justice, and for reasons which will appear in 
our next lecture. Nor was his argument intended to 
exhibit the only authority on which Christians them- 
selves rested their belief. The assertion that it was has 
been a fruitful cause of error in the understanding of 


1 What Plato says in the Timeus of the World-soul, “He 
placed it like a x in the universe,” Justin thinks he took from 
the account of the brazen serpent, identifying Plato’s World-soul 
with his own personal Logos. In the Ps-Platonic Ep. ii. occurs 
an obscure phrase, “ τὰ δὲ τρίτα περὶ τὸν τρίτον, which Justin con- 
siders a reminiscence of the Spirit brooding over chaos. Athe- 
nagoras (Supplic. 23) sees also in the same phrase a reference 
to the Spirit. 


36 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


Justin and his age. His argument was simply an apol- 
ogetic one. It outlined the course of thought along 
which his own mind travelled in assuring itself of the 
credibility of the new faith, and the course along which 
he believed others would be led to the same conclusion. 
The simplicity of the Christian ceremonies, the nobility 
of Christian ethics, the analogies with paganism, were 
meant to remove obstacles from the minds of his read- 
ers, in order that the marvellous fact of prophecy and 
its fulfilment might lead to the conviction that Chris- 
tianity was the absolute and eternal truth. 


The shorter Apology was called out by Justin’s in- 
dignation at a new outrage which had just occurred. 
eae It opens abruptly and vehemently. It is 
the shorter addressed to the Roman people, though it 
Apology. 

appeals also to the emperor and the Cesar 
as the highest representatives of the people. It de- 
clares that Christianity was being used as a charge to 
cover private malice. Of this a most outrageous in- 
stance had just taken place. A dissolute man, angry at 
his Christian wife for having rebuked his vices and 
finally left him, had charged her teacher, Ptolemzus, 
with being a Christian; and the prefect Urbicus had 
sentenced to death Ptolemeus and two others, simply 
because they confessed their religion (1, 21). Justin 
adds that he himself expects to fall a victim to the 
malice of Crescens, whom he had publicly shown to be 
an ignorant demagocue (3). He then briefly discusses 
two more popular objections brought against the Chris- 
tians. They were asked why, if they were so willing to 
die, they did not kill themselves. Justin replies (4), that 
God made the world for man, and is pleased with those 
who do the things which are like Himself. To kill 


a 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 37 


themselves would be, so far as they were concerned, to 
end the race and prevent the spread of the divine doc- 
trines. At the same time, when examined, they confess 
because it is wicked not to tell the truth. They were 
asked, also, why their God did not protect them. To 
this Justin replies (5) by declaring that God placed the 
world in charge of angels, but that some of these fell, 
and that to them and their offspring, the demons, are 
the evils endured by good men due. In contrast to 
these demons whom the wicked serve, he sets forth the 
one ineffable God whom the Christians worship, and 
His begotten Logos who became man to deliver men 
from the demons (6). Having determined to save men 
through Christ, God spares the world for the sake of the 
Christians (7). Men, too, are responsible for their treat- 
ment of the truth, and hence God allows opportunity 
for repentance before the final judgment comes. In all 
ages those who followed Reason have been persecuted 
by the demons (8). What wonder, then, if Christians 
are? But the time of judgment will come (9). Justin 
therefore repeats his favorite idea (10), that Christianity 
is superior to all other teaching, because it reveals the 
whole Logos (or Reason) of God. Others have known 
Him in part, but now He is completely manifested, and 
with such power over men as to demonstrate His claims. 
People should remember (11) that vice may easily simu- 
late the appearance of virtue, but that on really obeying 
and suffering for virtue does the future reward depend. 
In fact (12), the way Christians regard death is a 
crowning proof of the truth of their religion and of the 
falsity of the slanders reported about them. “I am a 
Christian,” he concludes (13); “and I find in Christian- 
ity nothing hostile to Plato, but only the completion of 
that which Plato and other philosophers taught.” Justin 


38 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


then (14) prays that his book may be authorized. He 
distinguishes himself from the Simonians, with whom 
he was afraid that he as a Samaritan might be confused, 
and remarks with no little sarcasm that his writings 
were at least not so injurious to the public morals as 
some others which were authorized and popular. 

It is clear that this supplement to Justin’s Apology 
was called out by a special occasion. It attempts no 
Its charac. €laborate proof of Christianity, but deals with 
er two popular sneers cast at the Christians. It 
is far more passionate than the longer Apology. It 
breathes a pathetic and indignant sense of injustice, and 
utters a conviction of the truth so intense as to be will- 
ing to face popular hatred without flinching and even 
death with indifference. 

When now we turn to the Dialogue with Trypho, we 
find ourselves in a quite different atmosphere from that 
Mees of the Apologies. The book is a recital, ad- 
πὸ ΤΕ dressed to a certain Marcus Pompeius,! of a 

debate which Justin says he had had with 
the Jew Trypho and some of Trypho’s friends. He met 
them while walking in the xystus? of a certain city 
which Eusebius says was Ephesus? Saluted by Trypho 
as a philosopher, and asked for his opinions, Justin re- 
fers the Jew to the prophets of his own nation, and is 
led to relate, as we have already described, the story of 
his conversion to Christianity, and his subsequent de- 
light in the prophets as inspired teachers of truth. He 
declares that Christianity is the true philosophy, and 
points Trypho to Jesus as the Messiah whom the proph- 


1 Cf. ce. 8, 141. 

2 Or covered colonnade in a gymnasium. 

8 H.E.iv.18. Weizsicker (Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol., xii. 1, 
pp- 60-119) thinks it was Corinth. 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 99 


ets foretold. This leads to the discussion, which is 
conducted on the part of Justin with great elaboration, 
with many repetitions and quotations from and explana- 
tions of the Old Testament, and on the part of Trypho 
at first with amusement, sometimes with earnestness, 
but generally with a rather too docile spirit to increase 
our confidence in the historical character of the narra- 
tive. The work is much longer than even the large 
Apology; and yet, in the judgment of some scholars, 
portions of it have been lost.1_ The debate appears to 
have lasted at least two days. How far the dialogue 
actually occurred, is a difficult question to answer. 
Perhaps it did take place, but the recital of it was after- 
wards elaborated by Justin. Fortunately, however, this 
is a matter of small consequence, since our interest in 
the work consists entirely in the view of Christianity 
and its circumstances expressed by the author. 

While the progress of the argument is often inter- 
rupted, while tedious repetitions occur and no careful 
plan is laid down for the debate, it is yet possible to 
recognize in the Dialogue three principal topics. 

The first (9-31) concerns the Mosaic ordinances, which 
Trypho represents as perpetually and universally bind- 
ing. The Jew does not indeed credit the infamous re- 
ports about the Christians, and has read and admired 
the “precepts in the so-called Gospel,” but thinks nev- 
ertheless that Justin might better have remained a dis- 
ciple of Plato than have believed in Jesus, and urges 
him to obey the ritual law. Thereupon Justin declares 
that the prophets themselves predicted a new law and 
covenant which have been revealed in Jesus. He con- 
tends that the Old Testament itself required men to 


1 Cf. Otto’s note 7 on c. 74, and note 9 on c. 105. 
2 Cf. c. 85: 


40 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


keep the eternal, moral decrees rather than the cere- 
monial. The latter, he says, were given to the Jews 
because of that nation’s persistent disposition to sin. 
God thus sought to remind them of Himself, or else, as 
in the case of circumcision, to mark them out for pun- 
ishment. Justin appeals to the example of the patri- 
archs for proof that righteousness does not consist in 
these observances. The true fast is abstinence from 
evil (15); the true ‘circumcision is that of the heart 
(24); the true Sabbath is repentance and obedience 
(12). Such rites are useless to those who have been 
witnessed to by God and have been baptized with the 
Holy Ghost. Christians have learned the true right- 
eousness from Christ (28), who has power now to de- 
liver them from the evil demons (30), and of whose 
greater power at his second advent Daniel the prophet 
spake (51). 

The last remark turns the discussion to the nature of 
Christ as taught by the Hebrew prophets, and to the 
proofs of the Messiahship of Jesus; and this subject, 
with several digressions, occupies the larger part of the 
Dialogue (82-129). When Trypho objects to the hum- 
ble lot of Jesus, Justin shows that the prophets foretold 
two advents, — one of humiliation and the other of glory 
(32-34). He shows also that Christ is called by the 
prophets God and Lord as well as Jacob (36-38). He 
points out various types of Christ and Christianity 
(40-42),' and infers from them that the law was to have 


1 He mentions as types the paschal lamb; the goats of the day 
of atonement; the offering of fine flour, which, he says, prefigured 
the Eucharist; circumcision, which typified spiritual circumcision 
wrought in believers by Him who rose from the dead on the eighth 
day; the bells on the high-priest’s robe, which, he says (incor- 
rectly, cf. Exod. xxviii. 33), were twelve in number, and typified 
the Apostles. 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 41 


an end in Christ, who was, in accordance with prophecy, 
born of a virgin (43), and whom all must believe and 
obey in order to be saved (44). After a digression 
(45-47) in which the salvability of those who lived in 
pre-Mosaic times and of Jewish Christians is main- 
tained, Trypho declares it absurd to believe that one 
who existed as God should be born a man, and contends 
also that Elias was to precede the Christ. Thereupon 
Justin — having put in the caution that even if the 
divine pre-existence of Jesus be not proved, still his 
Messiahship may be held — explains the mission of 
John the Baptist, adding, however, that before the sec- 
ond advent Elias will appear in person (48-51). He 
adduces also Jacob’s prediction (Gen. xlix. 10-12) in 
proof of the two advents of Christ, and of the fact that 
Jesus is indeed the promised one (52-54). When, how- 
ever, Trypho insists that he prove plainly from the 
Scriptures that the Christ is God, Justin undertakes to 
do so (55-62) by arguing that the Old Testament theo- 
phanies explain themselves, not as appearances of the 
divine Father, but of another person, called Angel and 
Lord and God and Beginning and Wisdom, who was 
subject to the Father and Maker of all things! 

The debate then turns to the Incarnation, which, in- 
cluding the birth from a virgin, was specially offensive 
to Trypho. Justin proves it (63-88) from the Psalms,? 
and still more particularly from Isaiah In doing so, 
he also defends the doctrine from the allegation of the 
Jew that it was on a par with the tales of mythology 
(67-70) ; maintains that the Jews had cut out certain 


1 He appeals also to the eighth chapter of Proverbs, and to the 
words of Gen. i. 26, “ Let us make man.” 

2 Ps. ex. 3, 4; xlv. 6-11; xcix. 1-7; Ixxii.; xix. 1-6. 

8 Explaining Isa. xlii. 8; vii. 10-17; and viii. 4. 


42 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


important passages from the Scriptures which bore on 
the subject, and adduces other passages to prove the 


1 Dial. 71-74. Justin says the following passages had been 
cut out: (1) “Esdras said to the people: This passover is our 
Saviour and our Refuge. And if ye have understood, and your 
heart has taken it in, that we are about to humble Him on a 
standard, then this place [Jerusalem] shall not be forsaken for- 
ever, said the God of Hosts. But if ye will not believe Him nor 
listen to His preaching, ye shall be a laughing-stock to the na- 
tions” (καὶ εἶπεν "Ἔσδρας τῷ λαῷ Τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα 6 σωτὴρ ἡμῶν 
καὶ ἡ καταφυγὴ ἡμῶν. καὶ ἐὰν διανοηθῆτε καὶ ἀνεβῇ ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὴν 
καρδίαν, ὅτι μέλλομεν αὐτὸν ταπεινοῦν ἐν σημείῳ καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα 
ἐλπίσωμεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, ov μὴ ἐρημωθῆ ὁ τόπος οὗτος εἰς τὸν ἅπαντα 
χρόνον, λέγει ὁ θεὸς τῶν δυνάμεων᾽ ἐὰν δὲ μὴ πιστεύσητε αὐτῷ 
μηδὲ εἰσακούσητε τοῦ κηρύγματος αὐτοῦ, ἔσεσθε ἐπίχαρμα τοῖς ἔθνεσι). 
This passage is also quoted, with slight verbal differences, by 
Lactantius (Instt. Div. iv. 18). Its source is not known, but it 
reads like a Christian interpolation attributed to Ezra. (2) “And 
from the things spoken by Jeremiah, they cut out the following: 
I [was] as a [harmless] lamb led to be slaughtered. ‘They 
devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay wood 
to [for] his bread, and let us blot him out from the land of 
the living, and his name shall be remembered no more (Δεῦτε; 
ἐμβάλωμεν ξύλον eis τὸν ἄρτον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκτρίψωμεν αὐτὸν ἐκ γῆς 
ζώντων καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ οὐ μὴ μνησθῇ οὐκέτι). And since this 
passage from the words of Jeremiah is still written in some copies 
in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since 
they were cut out), and since from these words it is shown that 
the Jews deliberated concerning the Christ Himself, plotting to 
crucify and slay Him, He is himself declared to be, as was also 
prophesied by Isaiah, led as a sheep to the slaughter, and is here 
represented as a harmless lamb; and so, being in a difficulty 
about it, they [the Jews] gave themselves to blasphemy [i. e., by 
cutting the passage out].” This passage, however, is still found 
in all our manuscripts of Jeremiah xi. 19. (3) “And from the 
words of the same Jeremiah, they likewise cut out the following: 
The holy [so Otto, reading ἅγιος for the ἀπὸ of the manuscripts] 
Lord God of Israel remembered His dead who lay asleep in the 
grave, and descended to them to preach to them His salvation.” 
This passage is quoted by Ireneus (adv. Her. iii. 20. 4) as from 
Isaiah, and again (iv. 22. 1) as from Jeremiah, and elsewhere (iv. 


ee Eee 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 43 


divinity of Christ as well as His incarnation. He then 
brings forward predictions and types of the crucifixion 
and its attendant events (89-105), of the resurrection, 
the call of the Gentiles, and the conversion of the world 
(106-118). In fact, the Christians, not the Jews, are, 
according to the Old Testament itself, the holy people 
promised to the patriarchs (119, 120) ; and the conver- 
sion of the Gentiles is a crowning proof, by its fulfil- 
ment of prophecy, that Jesus is the Christ (121, 122). 
It was Christ and the Christians of whom the prophets 
spake as Israel and sons of God (123-125); and the 
many names under which Christ is set forth in the Old 
Testament show his double nature. It was He who 
appeared to the patriarchs (127),—-a second divine 
person begotten by the Father’s will from His own 
substance (128) before all creation (129). 

In the remainder of the Dialogue (130-142) Justin 
shows that other prophecies foretold the conversion of 
the Gentiles, and maintains that they are more faithful 
to God than the Jews ever were (13]-133). The syn- 
agogue was typified in Leah, but the church in Rachel 
(134). The Christians, he repeats, are the true Israel, 


33. 1, 12; v. 31. 1) without mention of the writer’s name. It is 
found, however, in no ancient version of the prophets. (4) He 
states that the words “from the wood ” (ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου) were taken 
away from Ps. xev. (xevi.) 10, which should therefore read, “Say 
among the heathen, The Lord reigned from the wood.” So Justin 
quotes it in Ap. i. 41. The words which he claims were cut out 
are not found in any manuscript of the Psalm. They are quoted 
by Tertullian (adv. Marc. iii. 19, and adv. Jud. 10) and by later Fa- 
thers. These passages, at least, show the uncritical use of manu- 
scripts of Scripture by the early writers, and the ease with which 
textual corruptions could be introduced. They show, also, the 
fact of textual variations in the manuscripts of the LXX. as well 
as of the New Testament. 
1 Cf. Dial. 75, 76, 83, 85-88. 


44 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


while the Jews have rejected in Christ both God and the 
prophets (135, 136). He therefore exhorts his hearers 
to be converted, that they may be saved, like Noah, “ by 
water, faith, and wood,” and may inherit the promised 
possession; for God will receive, as the prophets and 
Christ declared, all of any race who seek Him, while he 
that perishes does so through his own fault (137-140). 
Finally, that it might not be said that the crucifixion of 
Christ, having been thus predicted, was necessary, and 
that they who crucified Him were unable to act other- 
wise, he declares that God created men and angels free, 
and that repentance is open to all (141). With this the 
discussion closes. The Jews express their gratification 
with what they have heard, and Justin parts from them 
with the remark, “I can wish nothing better for you 
than that you, perceiving that by this way it is given to 
every man to be happy, may yourselves also in all re- 
spects agree with us that Jesus is the Christ of God.” 4 
Such is a rapid survey of the course of thought in 
Justin’s books. It should be added that in the Dia- 
logue three important digressions occur, of which par- 
ticular mention will be made in the following lectures. 
One of these (35) pertains to Christians who ate meat 
which had been offered to idols, —a practice which 
Justin strenuously repudiates as heretical and impious. 
The second pertains to the salvation of the ancient 
Jews and of Jewish Christians (45-47), — the latter of 
whom Justin admits will be saved if they do not com- 
pel Gentiles also to observe the law. Some, however, 
he adds, will not fellowship with them; but he takes a 
more charitable view. The third digression (80, 81) 
pertains to the millennium. Justin expects a visible 


1 We have followed Otto’s text, which happily emends the 
manuscript. 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 45 


reign of Christ in Jerusalem for a thousand years, and 
quotes for it Rev. xx. 4, 5; but he admits that many 
good Christians believe otherwise. But without dwell- 
ing at present upon these points, it is sufficient to ob- 
serve that as Justin himself lived in the very centre of 
the turmoil and conflict, the perils and the progress of 
early Christianity, so his writings, whatever we may 
think of the worth of his arguments, bear evidence to 
an earnest, thoughtful, and brave spirit that gives addi- 
tional value to the testimony which he offers in them. 

The importance of Justin’s testimony to early Chris- 
tianity we shall now be able to perceive. The external 
features of his life do of themselves make him The impor- 
a witness of the highest value. Travelling,as $7.5 tes. 
he seems to have done, to the great cities of fimory 
the Empire ; residing, as he certainly did dur-_ his life 
ing many years, in the capital itself, and thus at the prin- 
cipal focus of the literary and religious as well as of 
the social and political activity of his day, he was likely 
to know Christianity, not in its local peculiarities, but 
in its universal and essential features. His inquiring 
mind, his love of truth, his acquaintance ana charac- 
with philosophy, — though, as we shall see, ἣν 
they affected injuriously his theology,—made him a 
trustworthy witness to the broader relations which 
Christianity was beginning to acquire; while his sturdy 
honesty and his hearty devotion to his religion assure 
us that his testimony is sincere, and that the power 
of the Gospel of which he wrote was a living reality 
to him. 

But besides this, the books of whose substance we 
have given an account evidently bear most directly 
upon the questions of special interest to us and the na- 


: Ὰ ture of his 
in the second century. As an Apologist, writings. 


46 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


Justin throws light upon the civil and social relations 
of early Christianity. As the author of the Dialogue, 
he throws light on the mutual relations of Gentile and 
Jewish Christianity. As a philosopher, he illustrates 
the relation of Christianity to pagan thought, the influ- 
ence of older systems upon the rising theology of the 
Church, and the dawning sense in the Church herself 
of the problems with which, as a world religion, Chris- 
tianity would have to grapple. In the course of his 
writings, moreover, he quotes frequently from what he 
calls “the memoirs of the Apostles,” or “ Gospels,” and 
thus becomes an important factor in the discussion of 
the canonicity and authenticity of our evangelical narra- 
tives. He describes, also, the ceremonies of the Chris- 
tians, and thus testifies to the institutions of the early 
Church. Finally, his attitude toward the Apostles; his 
agreements with and differences from the teaching of 
the New Testament epistles; his claim to represent, 
not a section, but the majority of the Christian com- 
munity, taken in connection with what has already 
been mentioned, make Justin a witness of the very 
first importance to the origin and character of early 
Catholic Christianity. 

And such a witness has Justin been considered by all 
classes of critics. Not only do we find him referred to 
Estimate of with honor, or quoted with approval, in the 


Justin by Ἶ : : 3 : 1 
the Church, generations immediately succeeding his own; 


1 Cf. Tatian ad Gree. 18 (“6 θαυμασιώτατος ᾿Ιουστῖνος ᾽) and 
19 (“ Crescens endeavored to inflict on Justin and, indeed, on me 
the punishment of death, . . . because, by proclaiming the truth, 
he [Justin] convicted the philosophers of being gluttons and 
cheats”). Tertullian (adv. Valent. 5), speaking of those who, be- 
ing contemporary with the Gnostic heresiarchs, had refuted them, 
mentions, first, “ Justin, philosopher and martyr.” Treneus (Δαν. 
Her. iv. 6. 2) quotes from Justin’s book against Marcion and (v. 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 47 


not only do we find Eusebius at a later date giving 
a careful account of the man and of his writings;} 
not only do we find his statements repeated, and his 
arguments used by his contemporaries and successors,? 
and his reputation as an orthodox father and a holy 
martyr cherished by all the later Church ;? but modern 
criticism has, in a different spirit, found him nq modern 
a prominent factor in the solution of the “tcs™ 

problems of early Christianity. Protestant writers were 
the first to assail the reputation of Justin, for the pur- 
pose of destroying the authority of the Church Fathers 
generally. They pointed out his errors, and declared 
his theology more Platonic than Christian, while the 
Roman Catholics defended him. The Protestant attack 
acquired new vigor with the appearance of Semler’s 
writings ® in 1762; but it still followed the old lines of 
debate until Eichhorn ® and Credner? brought the crit- 


26. 2) from a writing of Justin’s, the title of which is not given. 
Hippolytus (Refut. viii. 9) mentions Tatian as a disciple of Justin 
the Martyr. 

1 Cf. H. E. ii. 13; iii. 26; iv. 8, 9, 11, 12, 16-18; v. 28. 

2 Cf. Otto’s Justini Opera, tom. i. pars ii.index iv. Also Har- 
nack’s Die Uberleiferung, etc., pp. 130, ete. 

8 The post-Eusebian notices of Justin are scanty, and mostly 
taken from Eusebius or Irenzus, and show little or no acquaint- 
ance with Justin’s writings. Photius depends on Eusebius in his 
account of Justin, except that he mentions three (spurious) writ- 
ings of the Martyr which alone, of the so-called Justinian books 
named by him, he seems to have read. Cf. Harnack’s Die Uber- 
lieferung, etc., p. 150. 

4 Cf. Von Engelhardt’s Das Christenthum Justins, pp. 9, etc. 

5 Geschichte der Christlichen Glaubenslehren, in the Introduc- 
tion to S. J. Baumgarten’s Untersuchung theologischer Streitig- 
keiten. 

6 1752-1827. His Einleitung in das N. T. called out, in Amer- 
ica, Norton’s Genuineness of the Gospels. 

7 Beitrige zur Einleit. in d. bibl. Schriften, 1832. 


48 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


ical question of Justin’s relation to our Gospels into the 
foreground. A little later, the Tiibingen school of critics 
undertook to reconstruct early Christian history on a 
naturalistic basis, and forthwith the study of Justin 
took a wider range among scholars of all schools, and 
his entire relation to both the formation of the Canon 
and the development of the early Church came into con- 
sideration. For the present, it is sufficient to remark 
that the most opposite opinions about him have been 
held by modern critics. He has been called Ebion- 
ite, and Pauline;? an Ebionite at bottom, overlaid with 
Paulinism ;* a degenerate Paulinist;* a representative 
of a so-called free Petrine party,® or, as Hilgenfeld puts 
it of a Jewish-Christian or original-apostolic heathen 
Christianity ; while Baur declared that Justin cannot 
be positively assigned to any of the early parties, 
but marks the transition from them to Catholicism.’ 
While Credner considered Justin essentially Jewish- 
Christian, Von Engelhardt, his latest critic, considers 
him so essentially Gentile that his thought is declared 
to have been substantially pagan, though his language 
was colored and his heart won by Christianity. If the 
Tiibingen school and their followers have labored to 
assign him to his proper place in their various schemes, 
others ὃ have labored to show that he grew substantially 


1 Credner. 2 Neander, Semisch, Weizsicker. 

3 Schwegler. 4 Ritschl, Overbeck. 

5 Credner, Geschichte des N. T. Can. 1860. 

6 Zeitschr. fiir wissensch. Theol., 1872. Most of the above 
classification has been taken from Von Engelhardt. 

7 Christianity of the First Three Centuries, Eng. trans., vol. i. 
p- 146. 

8 As Semisch, Dorner, Otto, and, more recently, Stahlin, in re- 
ply to Von Engelhardt (Justin Martyr und sein neuester Vorur- 
theiler, Leipzig, 1880). 


IMPORTANCE OF JUSTIN’S TESTIMONY. 49 


on the soil of the orthodox apostolic tradition. But, 
whatever the estimate of the man and his position, all 
agree that he is one of the most important witnesses for 
the times in which he lived, and the problems con- 
nected with them. “For the historical understanding 
of the second Christian century, he first of all forms 
the key;”! and the very diversity of opinion concern- 
ing him shows him to be still a fit subject for renewed 
examination. 

Of course, in taking the testimony of one witness, we 
shall be careful not to consider him as representing 
more than we have reason to believe he τη οἱ 
really does represent. In confining ourselves these lec- 
to the testimony of Justin, we shall not ex- δὴ 
pect to learn the whole story of his age. It is possible, 
however, to discover from him the chief forces which 
were operating in post-apostolic Christianity. His wit- 
ness is a typical one. We shall not neglect, indeed, 
other testimony related to his; but with him as a 
guide, to glance at the external and internal conditions 
of the Christianity of the first half of the second cen- 
tury, at the dangers which threatened it, the influences 
which affected it, the foundation on which it claimed 
to rest, and the living power which it possessed, will 
be the object of the following lectures. 


1 Von Engelhardt’s Das Christenthum Justins, p. 490. 


LECTURE Il. 


THE TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN TO THE SOCIAL AND 
CIVIL RELATIONS OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 


USTIN is best known, as we learned in the last lec- 
ture, as an apologist for Christianity to the Gov- 
ernment and people of the Roman Empire in the reign 
Justinasan Of Antoninus Pius. He may be regarded as 
apologist. in most particulars a representative apol- 
ogist. Not only was he the first whose writings are 
extant, but he paved the way for those who followed 
him. While the defenders of Christianity in the sec- 
ond century often differed from one another in the posi- 
tive exposition of their religion; while some fiercely 
denounced paganism in its philosophical no less than 
in its practical forms, and others, like Justin, took 
a kindlier view of previous human thought, — they 
were perfectly agreed in their defence of Christianity 
and in the exhibition and refutation of the charges 
brought against it? From Justin, therefore, we may ac- 
curately learn the social and civil relations of the Chris- 
tianity of his time. With great boldness of speech, 
with evidently deep conviction and trustworthy infor- 
mation, he pleaded the cause of the despised religion, 
met the slanders which were circulated against it, and 
demanded its toleration by the State. He addressed 
himself to both the magistrates and the people. He 
pleaded for Christianity both before the law and before 


1 Cf. Aubé’s Saint Justin, pp. 276, ete. 


JUSTIN AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 51 


the tribunal of popular opinion. His Apologies, there- 
fore, exhibit both the civil and the social relations of 
Christianity in the middle of the second century; the 
attitude toward it of the Government and of the popu- 
lace, and its attitude in turn toward both. 

In the first place, Justin speaks of the diffusion of 
Christianity in strong though general terms. Chris- 
tians were “men of every raced’ tin They) τὶ sie 
comprised representatives of both the edu-  sionofChris- 
cated and the ignorant classes.2 They were Το 
“from all nations;”® and “all the earth,” says our au- 
thor, “has been filled with the glory and grace of God 
and of His Christ.”* The sacrifice of thanksgiving 
was offered in the Eucharist “in all places through- 
out the world;” for, he adds, “there is not one single 
race of men, whether barbarians or Greeks, or what- 
ever they may be called,— nomads or wanderers or 
herdsmen living in tents,5— among whom prayers and 
giving of thanks are not made to the Father and Maker 
of the universe through the name of the crucified Jesus.” 
Such language of course tells nothing as to the actual 
numerical strength of the Christians, and is not per- 
haps to be taken too literally.6 Even in much earlier 


1 Ap. i. 1, 25, 32, 40, 53, 56. 2 Ap. ii. 10. 

8 Dial. 52, 91, 121. 4 Dial. 42. 

5 Dial. 117. ἢ ἁμαξοβίων ἢ ἀοίκων καλουμένων ἢ ἐν σκηναῖς 
κτηνοτρόφων οἰκούντων. Otto, in his note, says that Scythians are 
called ἁμαξόβιοι in Horat. Od. iii. 24. 10; Plin. H. N. iv. 12. 25; 
Justin. Hist. ii. 2; that nomads, such as lived in India (Plin. vi. 17. 
20), Ethiopia (vi. 30. 35), and Numidia (v. 3), are called ἄοικοι; 
and that ἐν σκηναῖς κτηνοτρόφοι οἰκοῦντες are especially the tent- 
using tribes of Arabia (Plin. v. 24. 21; Jul. Solin. Polyhistor. 33; 
Genesis iv. 20). The terms thus show how broadly Justin meant 
to speak. 

6 Yet cf. the Epitaph of Abercius, quoted in Lightfoot’s Igna- 
tius, i. 480. 


02 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


times similar expressions had occasionally been used. 
But the frequent employment of such language by Jus- 
tin does indicate in the Christians of his time the 
sense of growing strength, the consciousness of being 
an ageressive power which had already diffused itself 
through all classes of society and had representatives in 
all known nations. Such language could not have been 
used, if Christianity were not proving its adaptation 
generally to the various races within and beyond the 
Empire. It is impossible to express the result by fig- 
ures; but the fact of a diffusion, at even this early pe- 
riod, wide enough to demonstrate the universal fitness 
and to promise the universal triumph of Christianity, 
may certainly be assumed. 

Not only, however, does Justin represent Christianity 
as widely diffused, but he also represents the Christian 
The Chris) COmMmunities as forming a collection of close 
tian societies. associations, the members of which were 
bound together by what seemed to them the strongest 
bonds. It is true that Justin does not testify to any 
organization of these separate communities into pro- 
vincial or imperial leagues. He says nothing of the 
relation of one “church” to another; and we shall here- 
after 2 infer from his language that the Christian com- 
munities were bound together only by their common 
faith and mutual sympathy. We do not find in him 
any allusion to a universal church externally organized 
into one association, but only to a now universal faith 
professed by separate communities in all parts of the 
known world. Negative evidence is of course less 
weighty than positive; but inasmuch as in this par- 
ticular Justin coincides with other writers of his day, 
it may be so far considered trustworthy. The moral 

1 Col. i. 6, 23; Ign. ad Eph. 3. 2 Lect. VI. 


JUSTIN AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 53 


and spiritual unity of Christendom was to our Apologist 
very real, but he gives no indication that it was ex- 
pressed in external organization. 

But at the same time Justin distinguishes sharply be- 
tween heretical Christians and those who, as he claims, 
held to the true and apostolic doctrine. To him the 
heretics were not Christians at 811,2 though popularly 
so called; and the division between them and the 
local communities which in Justin’s view were ortho- 
dox® was evidently severely drawn. These latter are 
represented by our Apologist as associations the mem- 
bers of which were very closely united. They practi- 
cally held their possessions in common ;* were “always 
together ;” ® assembled weekly for stated worship ® and 
assisted one another in time of need.® So far, in- 
deed, as dress and outward manners were concerned, 
they lived like other people ;® but they had their offi- 
cers and meeting-places and ceremonies,’ and thus 
formed in the strictest sense a brotherhood. Thus 
Christianity was not merely the diffusion of new truth 
or the progress of a new idea, but was also the spread 
of a new society. It was the establishment of churches 
which gave to the new faith local habitation and organ- 
ized power; and as such, its relations to the law and 
to popular sentiment were necessarily different from 
what they would have been if it had only spread as a 
new opinion from one individual to another. 

Now, Christianity, thus locally organized and widely 
diffused, is represented as encountering the intense 
enmity of the Roman world; and the principal causes 


1 Cf. Lect. VI. 2 Ap. i. 4, 26; Dial. 35, 82. 
3 *OpOoyvapoves. Dial. 80. 4 Ap. i. 14, 67. 
5 Ap. i. 67. 6 Dial. 10. 


7 Ap. i. 61-67. 


54 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


of this enmity are explicitly stated by Justin. He 
complains that the Christians were “unjustly hated and 
Hostility abused,” 1 and that report charged them with 
foward the the utmost “ impiety and wickedness.” 2 It 

was alleged that in their secret assemblies 
hideous crimes were committed, — that human victims 
were sacrificed and their blood drunk by the worship- 
pers, and that this impious banquet was followed by 
indulgence in hideous and lustful orgies. Such charges 
were manifestly born of the impure heart of paganism 
itself. They indicate, however, the suspicion and ha- 
tred with which the Christians were regarded. Justin 
complains * that the charge of being a Christian was 
often used as a means of gratifying private malice; 
and these infamous reports were evidently invented by 
an enmity which itself rested on deeper reasons, and 
found in such slanders an easy means of increasing 
the popular prejudice. 

He mentions, however, three charges in particular 
which were commonly made against the Christians.® 
Particular The first was that of atheism,6—a charge 
charges made which was made from the beginning and so 
(1) Atheism. Jono ag paganism remained the ruling power 
of the State. It sounds strangely enough in an age 
when the gods were denied by philosophers, ridiculed 
by popular writers and neglected by the people; and 
it was probably little more than a battle-cry against 
the hated sect. It meant, of course, that the Chris- 
tians denied the gods of the State, and thus it in- 
volved a charge of want of patriotism as well as want 
of piety. It was an effective cry by which occasionally 

1 An. i. 1, Ὁ ΚΟ τὸ ΤΣ, 8}. 
8 Ap. ii. 12; i. 26; Dial. 10. 4 Ap. 1 1 Ὁ: 
5 Ap. i. 6-12. 6 Ape ice 


JUSTIN AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 55 


to kindle the fury of the mob or excuse oppression ; 
and the Christians could only meet it by showing the 
folly of worshipping gods who were made by men and 
in which few of their professed votaries really be- 
lieved, and by declaring the deeper sense in which 
they were anything but atheists! The second charge 
was, as Justin puts it, that “some Christians (9) wicked- 
have been arrested and convicted as evil- "°° 
doers.” To this the Apologist replies, that as there 
are various kinds of philosophers, so are there various 
nominal Christians, and that all should not be con- 
demned because of the wrongs committed by some who 
bear the name. He demands that every accused person 
be examined, not as to the name he bears, but as to the 
life he has led, being apparently confident that no or- 
thodox Christian will be found guilty of wrong-doing. 
The third charge was that of disloyalty to the (g) pistoy- 
Government.2 It was apparently justified #*- 

by what the Christians said of their King and his fu- 
ture kingdom; but it was doubtless confirmed in pop- 
ular opinion by their refusal to worship the emperor, 
and their denial of the gods with whose recognition 
political duties were often involved in the ancient world, 
as well as by the appearance of Christianity as a widely 
diffused secret society. In vain did the Christians re- 
ply that they obeyed the laws, prayed for the emperor, 
paid their taxes, and often fought in the army.t In 
vain did Justin argue® that the principles of Chris- 
tianity would make good citizens of all men. The 
suspicion of the growing society remained; and when 
to the charges of atheism and licentiousness that of 
disloyalty was added, it is evident that the popular 

1 Ap. i. 6, 9, 10. SAD Ie 7. 8 Ap. i. 11. 
4 Ap.i. 17; ef. Tert. Apol. 42, etc. 5 Ap. i. 12. 


56 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


prejudice against Christianity was such as to be ever 
lable to break out into acts of open violence. 
And quite as significant as these formal charges 
against Christianity was the popular impatience with it 
._.. to which Justin likewise bears witness. It 
Popular im- See : 
ee es felt by individuals who knew its real 
“" purity to be a rebuke to society! The 
willingness of its confessors to die rather than deny 
it was in the eyes of even a Stoic like Marcus Aure- 
lius a piece of senseless obstinacy with which neither 
the rabble nor the philosophers had any sympathy.? 
Neither could paganism understand why the Almighty 
God whom the Christians confessed did not protect 
His worshippers2 Their very sufferings seemed to 
disprove their religion. The ability to punish them 
seemed to their enemies a quick and decisive settlement 
of the whole question in debate. With such demented 
people society in general had little patience; while, 
as we have seen, the Christian communities appeared 
in several ways dangerous to the public welfare. The 
Jews in particular led the Gentiles in hatred and ridi- 
cule of the new sect, and spread abroad the worst 
misrepresentations of it.6 Despite the progress which 
Christianity was making; despite the fear with which 
the name of Christ, as the name of a mighty spirit, 
was sometimes invoked by the superstitious ;° despite 
the recognition, given here and there even by unbe- 
levers, of the moral grandeur of Christ’s teaching and 


2 Ap. ii. 4. Marcus Aurelius (Med. xi. 3) called it ψιλὴν 
παρατάξιν, --- mere ambition. 

3 Ap. ii. 5. 

# Dial. 6, 117, ete.; cf. Lucian’s De morte Perigrini. 

5. Diak 10: 

6 Dial. 121, 131. 


JUSTIN AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 57 


the moral enthusiasm of his followers,1—the Christians 
were looked upon in Justin’s time by the mass of their 
fellow-citizens with either haughty contempt or blind, 
impatient hatred. 

Such was the disposition of pagan society toward 
Christianity ; and we may remark that Justin’s descrip- 
tion is precisely that which from the testi- | 4.5. ae 
mony of the preceding and following periods scription 

Σ confirmed 
we should expect to hear. Even in the New by other 
Testament, though the sentiment of the pagan Big 
world toward Christianity there comes but little into 
notice, we can recognize the substance of the charges 
which Justin mentions already beginning to appear. 
The Jews in Thessalonica accused the Christians be- 
fore the magistrates of “doing contrary to the decrees of 
Czesar, saying that there is another King, one Jesus ;”? 
the rabble at Ephesus cried out against the injury 
done by Paul and his companions to their patron 
goddess Diana;? and Peter warned his readers* of 
the reproach and suffering which was impending over 
them as Christians at the hands of the Gentile world. 
When, then, Christianity, at last distinct from Juda- 
ism, appears on the pages of secular or ecclesiasti- 
cal history, the hostility against it is found to have 
followed the same lines, though with increasing force. 
Nero made the Christians the scapegoats of his crime 
because they were, as Tacitus informs us,° “convicted 
of hatred of the human race” and “detested for their 
crimes;” while Suetonius speaking of the same pe- 
riod, calls their religion a “new and mischievous su- 
perstition.” Domitian put to death Flavius Clemens 

1 Dial. 10; cf. Ep. to Diog. 1. 2 Acts xvii. 7. 


8 Acts xix. 23, 39. 41 Pet. iv. 12-17. 
5 Ann. xv. 44. © Nero, 16. 


58 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


and banished Domitilla, the wife of Clemens, on the 
charge of “atheism ;”} and Clement of Rome, about the 
same time,” testifies that he and his fellow-Christians 
were “hated wrongfully,” while in his prayer for ru- 
1615 3 he proves how law-abiding and loyal they really 
were. Pliny in his letter to Trajan, though inclined to 
judge the Christians leniently, nevertheless betrays the 
temper of the age when he affirms that whatever their 
character, they deserved punishment on account of their 
obstinacy ;* while the silence concerning Christianity on 
the part of such writers as Plutarch and Dio Chrysos- 
tom, who had so much in common with it and who 
could scarcely have been ignorant of it, shows with what 
contempt it must have been regarded by the cultured 
as well as by the popular paganism of their day. And 
when, on the other hand, we turn to the writers subse- 
quent to Justin, we find the same hatred which he de- 
scribes and the same charges which he refutes described 
and refuted with even more elaboration, as for exam- 
ple in the Supplicatio of Athenagoras, the Apology of 
Tertullian, and the Octavius of Minucius Felix. His 
description of the popular enmity toward the Christians 
is, therefore, the common testimony of the whole century 
to which he belonged. Society was suspicious of the 
political aims of the Christians. The dying embers of 
religious zeal were kindled into fresh outbursts of flame 
by the Christian’s practical contempt for the old gods, — 
a flame which the sceptical philosophy had been too 
theoretical to kindle. Individual hatred of goodness, 
the traditional enmity of the Jews, the love of the rabble 


1 Dion. Cass. Ixvii. 44; Sueton. Domit. 15. That Flavius Cle- 
mens and Domitilla were Christians, cf. Lightfoot’s Commentary 
on Philippians, pp. 22, 23, and on Clement, of Rome, pp. 257, etc. 

2 Ad Cor. i. 60. 8 Tbid., 60, 61. 4 Cf. below. 


JUSTIN AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 59 


for cruelty, the ill-will or fanaticism of magistrates, the 
terror caused by national calamities, combined in various 
proportions to impute infamous deeds to these quiet, 
isolated people, and to make them the objects of un- 
reasonable hatred to the mass of their fellow-men. 

As we consider this social prejudice of the Roman 
world against the followers of Christ, two 

5 : : Explanation 

observations may be made in explanation of this popu- 
of it. Manifestly the main charge against ποτ 
them, the charge which caught most quickly the ear 
of the populace, was a political one. The charge of 
“atheism” was itself a political charge. τς Hy ae 
Religion and politics were formally united  tians unpa- 
in the pagan world. Religion was chiefly ἘΝ ΤΙ 
supported by political considerations, and this not only 
because of the deliberate policy of statesmen, but be- 
cause of the political fears and superstitions of the 
people. The habits of the Christians lent plausibility 
to the charge. Their refusal to sacrifice was naturally 
interpreted as disloyalty. Their necessary separation 
from much of the daily life and from many of the 
pleasures of their fellow-citizens, because these involved 
in countless little ways a recognition of the gods, added 
to the charge of disloyalty the impression that they 
were at war with society itself. They were thus inevi- 
tably objects of dislike. The slanders invented against 
them were but the expression of the feeling that what- 
ever was unhuman belonged to the Christians, and in 
any popular outbreak they were the natural victims 
selected to gratify the anger or satisfy the terror of the 
mob. And hence it is equally manifest that this polit- 
ical and social antipathy was ultimately due to the 
radical difference in character between pagan and Chris- 
tian life. The former could not understand the latter. 


60 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


Immorality could not but hate morality; and there was 
a profound truth expressed by Justin in a crude way, 
The enmity when he attributed persecution to the rage of 
of thenew the demons. Besides this, a society to which 
and the old u 

ideas inevi- this world was the only real place of happi- 
ane ness, and force the only real divinity, and 
religion only a political safeguard, and ethics only a pub- 
lic law founded on expediency, could not understand the 
Christian’s sense of immediate responsibility to God and 
practical hope of a future life. Pride of race and the 
spirit of conquest could not understand universal love 
and the spirit of self-sacrifice. Even pagan culture had 
been too much accustomed to regard itself as the privi- 
lege of a select few to understand a philosophy of ar- 
tisans and slaves, of women and children; and had too 
often bowed in the temples of the gods whom it denied 
to understand the firm refusal of the Christians to live 
at the cost of a lie. We see, therefore, in the antago- 
nism of pagan society toward Christianity, the clash of 
natural foes, the inevitable repulsion of fundamentally 
opposed moral forces; and the vulgar hatred and slan- 
ders, the outbursts of violence, the vengeance of private 
malice, as well as the contempt of the cultured classes, 
were but the results, as Justin himself felt and said, of 
an hostility too deep and radical to be due to any causes 
save those which determined the very foundations of 
character. To the historian, no less than to the theolo- 
gian, must the explanation lie in the necessary antipathy 
of the ideals, standards, and principles of the old world 
to those of the new. 

All this popular prejudice, however, might have 
Attitude of availed little, if it had not been for the 
ἐάσω a fact that in the eyes of Roman law Chris- 
tianity was, almost of necessity, legal. The attitude 


JUSTIN AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 61 


toward the new religion of the Roman Government in 
general, and particularly that of Trajan, Hadrian, and 
the Antonines, has long been a matter of dispute. Let 
us first examine on this point the testimony of Justin, 
and compare it with other known facts of history. 
Justin complains that the Christians were condemned 
merely for a name,! and that no investigation was held 
as to their moral character or conduct.2 The christianity 
simple denial of Christianity was sufficient ‘es! 
to secure the release of the accused.? He relates * that 
the prefect Urbicus put to death three persons on this 
ground alone, and shows that in the enforcement of the 
law much depended on the caprice of the magistrate. 
Finally, he appends to his larger Apology a letter written 
about twenty-five years before® by Hadrian to Minu- 
cius Fundanus, a proconsul of Asia, which Justin seems 
to have considered favorable to at least fair treatment of 
the Christians. Of this letter I shall speak in a mo- 
ment. For the present it should be observed that, 
according to Justin’s own testimony, Christianity was 
illegal. It was itself a crime in the eyes of the law. 
While individual magistrates may have acted arbitrarily 
in their proceedings, such action as Justin describes 
could not have occurred, if at least the letter of the law 
had not proscribed the professors of the new religion. 
At the same time Justin does not complain of any 

formal, governmental persecution. To the eee 
fact of outrages he bears explicit testimony, pereention, 
but not to a systematic war against the pubes 
Christians, directed from headquarters. He ag 
rather complains that the Imperial rulers did not ac- 

1 Api. 4. 2 Ap. i. 2, 7. 

8 Ap. i. 8. 4 Ap. ii. 2. 

5 Cf. Lightfoot’s Ignatius, i. 460. 


62 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


tively interfere to prevent such outrages! He certainly 
writes as if these latter were not infrequent ;? but the 
example of them which he adduces in his smaller Apol- 
ogy 3. illustrates merely the way in which private malice 
was sometimes the cause of persecution, while he lays 
the blame more on magistrates ike Urbicus* than on 
the Imperial rulers themselves, He declares, indeed, 
that “children or weak women” had been tortured to 
procure evidence against the Christians; but this may 
have been no more than the work of occasional fanati- 
cism; nor does Justin speak as if such cruelties had 
recently occurred,® and he intimates in one place’ that 
the Government prevented the hatred of the Jews from 
venting itself as it would otherwise do. The scope of 
his testimony, in short, is to represent persecutions as 
outbursts of popular or individual anger, permitted or 
abetted by magistrates, and rendered possible by the 
existing laws. Of any organized or systematic perse- 
cution he does not speak. 
ioe Ore The question therefore arises, how far this 
Ἶ ree eon representation of the state of the case is con- 
fied by other firmed by other evidence. 
SESE If we examine the letter of Hadrian which 
Justin appended to his Apology, and which in the Latin 
Hadrian's form preserved by Rufinus in his translation 
lester: of Eusebius® may reasonably be considered 
genuine? we find that it was directed merely against 

TRAD. 2. 

2 Ap.i. 4,57. He speaks of “unutterable cruelties, death and 
torments” (Dial. 18; cf. too 110). 

3 Ap. ii. 2. SA, tie 1. 5 Ap. ii. 12. 

6 Pliny (Letter to Trajan) says that he tortured two women to 
learn from them the truth about the Christians. 


7 Dial. 16. 8 H. E. iv. 10. 
9 Cf. Lightfoot’s Ignatius, i. 460, ete., where the history of opin- 


JUSTIN AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 63 


assaults upon the Christians made without observance 
of the forms of law. Hadrian allows process against 
them, if there be a regular prosecutor. He prohibits 
his officers from yielding to the cries of the mob, 
and further directs that false accusers shall be them- 
selves severely punished; but he assumes that Chris- 
tianity may be itself a punishable offence. The letter 
was, in a certain measure, favorable to the Christians. 
It protected them from mob-violence and brutal assault, 
and it evinced a disposition on the part of the emperor 
not to encourage persecution, but rather to restrain it. 
Still, the sentence, “If any one make an accusation, 
and prove that the said men do anything contrary to 
the laws, you shall adjudge punishments in proportion 
to the desert of the offences,” left the existing laws 
unchanged, and shows that the emperor intended to 
follow the already established usage. 

Light is thrown on that usage by the earlier corre- 
spondence of Trajan and Pliny. Pliny the Younger was 
propreetor of Pontus and Bithynia, and wrote Correspond- 
his famous letter to Trajan in A.D. 112. In Trajan ΘΝ 
it he expresses his ignorance of how far it Pliny: 
was customary for the Government to punish or seek out 
the Christians. He had hesitated as to whether the age 
of the accused should affect his sentence; whether the 
name of Christian was to be itself punished, or only the 
offences that might be added to the name. As it was, 
he had asked the accused if they were Christians. 
When they confessed, he had asked a second and a 
ion concerning the letter, and the argument for its genuineness, is 
briefly but satisfactorily given. 

1 Cf. Lightfoot’s Ignatius, i. 532, note, where an account is 
given of Mommsen’s investigations, based on the recent discovery 


of an inscription, by which the date of the correspondence is accu- 
rately fixed. 


64 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


third time, threatening them with punishment. When 
they persisted, he had ordered them to execution, not 
doubting that, whatever their belief might be, their 
obstinacy deserved punishment. Those of them, how- 
ever, who were Roman citizens he had ordered to be sent 
to the capital. But this treatment of the matter had 
only shown him the difficulties of his position. Various 
classes of accused persons came before him. Many were 
anonymously accused. Those who denied Christianity, 
and called on the gods, and adored the image of the em- 
peror, and cursed Christ, — which, Pliny adds, he had 
been told no true Christian would do,—he had dismissed. 
Others confessed that they had been Christians, but had 
ceased to be so; yet these assured the governor of the 
innocuous character of the Christian doctrines and hab- 
its, and that the Christians had even abandoned their 
practice of celebrating an evening meal? together, in 
obedience to the emperor’s prohibition of clubs. Pliny, 
in short, found Christianity to be merely a “ perverse, 
extravagant superstition.” * He therefore, especially in 
view of the large number of Christians in his province, 
consulted the emperor as to what course he should pursue. 
It seemed to him possible to correct this superstition, if 
severity were tempered with mildness. Already, he de- 
clares, had his action revived the worship in the temples. 
In reply, Trajan commended Pliny’s action. He directed 
that Christians should not be sought after, but that, when 
accused, they should be punished unless they denied 
Christianity and adored the gods; in which case, even 
although suspected of having formerly been Christians, 
they should be set free. No anonymous accusations, 
however, should be received. 
1 The ἀγάπη. 
2 « Superstitionem pravam immodicam.” 


JUSTIN AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 65 


It is evident from these letters that neither Trajan 
nor Pliny cared anything for Christianity in its re- 
ligious aspects, and did not consider it as more than 
a transient phase of superstition. They had no wish 
to be religious persecutors. But they were determined 
to insist on the loyalty of all subjects of the Roman 
Empire. To them the first of all duties was obe- 
dience to the State; and it was wholly as a political 
matter that they viewed religion in general, and Chris- 
tianity in particular. Trajan, moreover, had strongly 
enforced the earlier laws directed against secret associa- 
tions or clubs. Only such associations as Determina- 
had been specifically authorized were per- ee 
mitted. Such was the law passed as early [0 Suppress | 
as the times of Julius Cesar to check societies. 
the political influence of the clubs, which had been 
injurious to the State in the later days of the 
Republic; and the emperors found it necessary to 
watch the formation of such associations with jealous 
eyes. In a previous letter to Pliny, Trajan had refused 
to sanction even a small association which it was pro- 
posed to form in Nicomedia for the purpose of putting 
out fires. Under this prohibition of “heteriz” the 
Christian communities came as soon as Chris- The Chris- 
tianity was clearly separated from Judaism. fan srcicties 
As a religion, Christianity, unlike Judaism, ‘esl, 
was not recognized. It could not be, since it had no 
national or local habitation. It could only be viewed 
as a secret association; and De Rossi? has and Chris- 
shown that at a later period the church was cme 
first recognized by the law as an authorized burial-club. 


1 Cf. Mommsen’s Hist. of Rome, iv. 601. 
2 Roma Sotterranea, i. 10, etc., cited by Lightfoot, Ignatius, i. 
20, note 2. 
5 


66 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


Hence, to Trajan and Pliny the Christian societies 
were illegal, and membership in them a crime. To 
the emperor and his propretor there was but one 
test of loyalty to be applied to all subjects of the Em- 
pire. The latter must sacrifice to the gods of Rome, 
and adore the emperor’s image. This requirement, it 
should be remembered, was simply a political one. The 
worship of the emperors was the one cult in which the 
Roman world was united, and was the universal sym- 
bol of political fealty. Refusal to render such homage 
was, to Pliny’s mind, madness and invincible obstinacy. 
Whatever else they might believe, in this all loyal cit- 
izens would concur. In vain might the Christians 
protest that they were law-abiding citizens, that they 
prayed for the emperor, and discharged their civil du- 
ties. The worship of the emperor was part of the oath 
of allegiance; and these men, who were joined together 
in a secret, unauthorized association, and who refused 
to render the required homage to the majesty of the 
Empire, were of necessity proscribed and amenable to 
punishment, and all the more so in the eyes of those 
magistrates who were zealous for what they deemed the 
public welfare. 

Trajan, therefore, is not to be considered, as has often 
been done, as having issued an edict against Christianity, 


Position or as having first legalized persecution. There 
akenby 
Trajan. is nothing to show that such an edict was 


ever issued till the beginning of the third century. He 
simply enforced already existing laws, under which Chris- 
tianity was illegal, and had been treated as such. Nor 
was either he or Pliny solicitous to destroy Christianity 


1 Cf. this subject discussed in Lightfoot’s Ignatius, i. 7, ete. 
2 Cf. Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, ch. xvi.; Aubé’s Saint Justin, 
ch. i. of Introduction, p. 44. 


JUSTIN AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 67 


as a religion. Both show a disposition to as much mild- 
ness as was, in their view, consistent with the peace and 
loyalty of the community ; while at the same time both 
assume that the Christian societies were illegal, and that 
membership in them was a heinous offence. 

With this, then, corresponds the letter of Hadrian to 
Minucius Fundanus. It is written in the same spirit as 
Trajan’s to Pliny, and was clearly intended 5... οὗ 
to continue the same policy. Consequently seria 
Justin could not properly plead Hadrian’s Hadrian’s 
letter as granting toleration to Christianity. ὍΣΣ 
He could plead it against all acts of popular or private 
violence. He could plead also the spirit of mildness 
and conciliation which is manifest in it. It would 
seem, indeed, from his language,! that he thought it 
granted the very thing which he demanded; namely, 
the trial of Christians only for what was generally 
esteemed criminal. So he seems to have interpreted 
the direction of the letter that accusers should show 
that the Christians had done something contrary to the 
laws.2 But since, as we have seen, the laws forbade 
membership in unauthorized societies, Justin’s inter- 
pretation, if such were really meant by him, would not 
stand, and the law still left it possible for Christians to 
be punished “merely for a name.” The Apologist could 
only appeal from the mild and just spirit of Hadrian to 
the still milder and juster spirit of Antoninus. 


1 Ap.i. 68. “Though from the letter of Hadrian we could 
demand that you order the judgment to be given as we have 
asked.” 

2 Gieseler (Ch. Hist. i. 126, note 4) sees this interpretation of 
Hadrian’s letter, imputed by the Christians to Antoninus in the 
spurious letter of the latter to the Commune of Asia, where Ha- 
drian is quoted as forbidding molestation of the Christians, unless 
φαίνοιντό τι ἐπὶ THY ἡγεμονίαν Ῥωμαίων ἐγχειροῦντες. 


68 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


But the condition of things described by Justin is pre- 
cisely that which from these Imperial letters we should 
rare have expected to find. It 15 easy to see that 
tion con- being thus under the ban of the law without 
came being specifically proscribed, Christians were 
likely to be variously treated in different places and at 
different times. The enforcement of the general law 
would naturally vary with the temper of officials and 
communities. 

The evidence? goes to show that neither Trajan, Ha- 
drian, nor Antoninus took any active part in the per- 
The Govern. SCCUtion of Christians, but sought rather to 
mentnota restrain all violent outbreaks, and acted con- 
pa # sistently upon the lines laid down in the 
letter to Pliny which we have discussed. ‘This had not 
been the case in the previous period. The two Roman 
persecutions of the first century of which we have any 
clear account were directed by Nero and Domitian 
themselves.2, But with the accession of Trajan, and 
indeed of Nerva before him, a new class of princes oc- 
cupied the throne of the Cesars,— princes who were 
neither jealous nor tyrannical nor serious enough to 
persecute religion as such, and who were too just to 
countenance popular violence. While, therefore, during 
their reigns the Christian societies were unlawful, these 
emperors appear to have been more and more inclined 
to deal gently with the offenders, and to have insisted 
that their officers should only condemn such as were 
convicted by legal process. We are told by Melito?: 

1 See this collected by Lightfoot, Ignatius, i. 1-69, 460-529. 

2 For Nero’s persecution, cf. Tac. Ann. xv. 44; Eus. H. E. ii. 
25. For Domitian’s, ef. Dio Cass. Ixvii. 14, and Eus. H. E. iii. 17, 
19, 20, who quotes Hegesippus and Tertullian. Cf. also Cl. Rom. 
ad Cor. i. 1. 

8 Kus. H. E. iv. 26. 


JUSTIN AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 69 


that Antoninus “wrote to the cities forbidding any 
strange movements against us.” ‘“ Among these,” he 
adds, “were the ordinances to the Larisszeans, to the 
Thessalonians and Athenians and all the Greeks.”! By 
“strange movements” we are doubtless again to under- 
stand popular or irregular assaults. It would thus ap- 
pear that the mild policy of the emperors continued. 
If Trajan, resolved though he was to put down illegal 
associations, and clearly though he recognized member- 
ship in a Christian society to be a crime, yet directed 
that Christians should only be condemned when accused 
by a responsible party and convicted in legal form, 
Hadrian still more emphatically laid down the same 
rule, even directing that false accusers should be se- 
verely punished ; and Antoninus, who possessed a more 
amiable temper than either of his predecessors, rebuked, 
apparently on several occasions, the spirit of lawless 
persecution. We are certainly not to suppose that 
Christianity was regarded with any more respect for 
not being officially persecuted. We are to attribute 
the Imperial policy as much to indifference toward and 
contempt for the Christians as to the humanity of the 
reigning princes. If the letter of Hadrian to the Con- 
sul Servianus be genuine, that emperor looked on at 
least the Christians of Egypt as merely one of the 
many varieties of fanatics which Alexandria contained, 


1 The letter to the Commune of Asia, one form of which is 
given by Eus. H. E. iv. 13, and another form appended in the 
manuscripts, together with the pretended letter of Marcus Aure- 
lius to the Senate, to the larger Apology of Justin, is obviously 
spurious, whether it be attributed to Antoninus or to Aurelius. It 
is a eulogy of the Christians. Cf. Lightfoot’s Ignatius, i. 465-469 ; 
Gieseler’s Ch. Hist. i. 126, note 4; Neander’s Ch. Hist. i. 104. 

2 Lightfoot (Ignatius, i. 464) seems inclined to accept its 
genuineness. 


70. JUSTIN MARTYR. 


and as being as insincere as the rest. They all, he says, 
have one God; namely, money. But whatever the 
cause, such was the policy of these emperors ; and it is 
not till the reign of Marcus Aurelius that direct opposi- 
tion to Christianity can be laid at the Imperial door. 
It is he, the most serious of all the emperors and the 
one most devoted to the Roman ideal of obedience to 
the State, to whom responsibility for active persecution 
of the Christians can first, after Domitian, be plausibly 
attached. Not only were the sufferings of the Clris- 
tians in his reign greatly increased, but he himself, 
while still nominally acting on the principles of his 
predecessors, seems to have favored the active search 
for offenders which his officials instituted in Gaul and 
Asia;* while his expressions concerning the Christians, 
and his decrees against what he considered “ supersti- 
tions ” and “ new religions,” * plainly indicate the posi- 
tive hatred which he must have felt toward the rising 
sect. His son Commodus, on the contrary, more than 
returned to the mild policy of his father’s predecessors. 
If, moreover, the evidence shows that under Trajan, 
Hadrian, and Antoninus the Imperial Government, while 


1 “Unus illis deus nummus est.” Some read “nullus” for “num- 
mus” (cf. Weiseler’s Die Christenverfoleung der Casaren, p. 33) ; 
but the emperor’s contempt is none the less plain. ‘“ Nummus,” 
however, is generally accepted. 

2 For the persecution at Lyons and Vienne, cf. Eus. H. E. v. 
1, 2. That new violence in persecution was begun in Asia by the 
Roman officials is attested by Melito (Eus. H. E. iv. 26), which 
Neander (Ch. Hist. i. 105) thinks could not have happened with- 
out the emperor’s permission. Cf. also Lightfoot’s Ignatius, i. 
500, 510. The so-called letter of Aurelius to the Senate is a 
Christian fable (cf. Lightfoot’s Ignatius, i. 469, etc.; Gieseler’s 
Ch. Hist. i. 127, note 10). 

3 Meditat. xi. 3, quoted above. 

4 These are quoted in Lightfoot’s Ignatius, i. 486. 


JUSTIN AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 71 


regarding Christianity as illegal, sought to restrain pop- 
ular outbreaks, it also seems to show that under these 
emperors the actual sufferings of the Chris- The sufier- 
tians were, after all, not very severe. In con- δὲ οὗ the 
ceiving of these, we should not take too Pots svere 
literally the statements of later Christian writ- time. 

ers, nor accept without critical examination the martyr- 
ologies, nor reckon to this early period the slaughters of 
the succeeding century. By the side of the evidence 
for persecution, we may place other facts which show 
that oftentimes the presence and activity of the Chris- 
tians were practically tolerated. Thus Ignatius, on his 
journey to Rome, though a prisoner under guard, re- 
ceived deputations from the churches of Asia, and had 
apparently free intercourse with them. Lucian also, at 
a period but little later than the time of Justin’s writ- 
ings, describes the attentions paid by the Christians to 
their brethren in prison;? and Justin himself? speaks, 
as do other writers, of those in bonds as regular ob- 
jects of the charity of the church. These facts certainly 
imply no great rigor of persecution, and quite accord 
with the spirit of the Imperial rescripts. Bishop Light- 
foot 5. concludes, after a careful examination, that only 
one known martyrdom can be confidently ascribed to 
the reign of Hadrian, and, besides the Bithynian suffer- 
ers of whom Pliny informs us, we know of only two in 
the reign of Trajan. Under Antoninus the number of 


1 De morte Perigrini, 12. 2 Ap. i. 67. 

8 Ignatius and Polycarp, i. 486, ete. Under Hadrian, Tele- 
sphorus, Bishop of Rome, suffered; probably in A. Ὁ. 137 or 138. 
Tren. adv. Her. iii. 3, 4. 

4 Symeon of Jerusalem (according to Hegesippus, in Eus. H. E. 
iii. 32) and Ignatius. This statement, however, is not to be un- 
derstood as affirming that no other martyrdoms occurred, but only 
that they were fewer than has been supposed. 


ΠΟΥῈ JUSTIN MARTYR. 


martyrs was larger. The letters of the emperor to the 
Greeks, to which Melito refers, imply that assaults upon 
the Christians had been renewed in violent forms; and 
from Dionysius of Corinth,! we hear of persecutions oc- 
curring about this time at Athens, in which Publius 
the bishop had been martyred. The death of Polycarp, 
of Smyrna, is also to be placed in 155 or 156, and 
therefore in the reign of Antoninus.” 

With all this the testimony of Justin, as we have pre- 
sented it, coincides; but it is not to be so interpreted 
τ . 85 to hide the fact that the era of real perse- 

ersecution 5 ΒΕ ο 
but just be- cution was but just beginning. Such, indeed, 
ginning. aus os 

was Justin’s own opinion. He expected per- 
secution to wax worse and worse until Christ should 
return. As things then were, the Christians had truly 
reason enough to complain. Suspected and hated by 
their fellow-men, they were liable to be made at any 
moment the victims of popular fury. Their societies 
being illegal, private malice could always procure their 
imprisonment or death. Proscribed by the law, the 
possibility of suffering “for a name” was always im- 
pending over them. Enough had already suffered to 
justify the Apologist’s complaint and appeal. But the 
great conflict was only beginning. As at first Chris- 
tians had been protected through being identified in 
Roman eyes with the Jews, so were they afterwards in 
some measure protected by the Providence which placed 
on the Imperial throne rulers too tolerant and just to 
permit popular hatred to express itself without the 
forms of law. Thus measurably shielded while suffi- 


1 Eus. H. E. iv. 23. 

2 Cf. Lightfoot’s Ignatius and Polycarp, i. 629, where Wad- 
dington’s researches are given. 

8 Dial. 39, 110. 


JUSTIN AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 73 


ciently disciplined by suffering, Christianity was enabled 
to prepare for the later struggle. In Justin’s time the 
omens of the coming battle were beginning to appear. 
But it was not till the following century that the hand- 
to-hand conflict of Christianity and paganism — the 
former now strong in numbers and widely pervading 
society, and the latter upheld avowedly by emperors 
and Government — was in reality fought. 

With, then, this view of the social and civil relations 
of early Christianity, we are ready to appre- | oy. a. 
ciate the defence of his religion which Justin ee 
offered to the rulers and people of the Km- ‘ 
pire. Let us observe his plea, estimate its force, and 
consider its implications. 

Justin’s Apology was manifestly in substance an 
appeal against that policy of the Government which, 
as we have seen, classed Christianity in the we appealed 
number of illicit societies. It is true that ἔαρ δα αι 


for legal rec- 
Justin did not say this formally, but it is ognition of 


the Christian 
implied in what he did say. He complained societies. 
against the injustice of condemning men merely for a 
name. He insisted that each man should be tried on 
the ground of his moral character and conduct. He 
indignantly appealed to the equity of the rulers, and 
asked how they could permit such manifest tyranny. 
He interpreted Hadrian’s letter as opposed to such 
treatment of guiltless men. In short, he appealed for 
liberty of opinion and worship, for the toleration of 
Christianity and its protection from violence. He de- 
manded that it be placed on a level with other wor- 
ships and beliefs which were allowed by the authorities. 
If it be asked why he did not couch his demand in legal 
terms, the reply may be made that Justin was not a 
lawyer, and that he was going to offer a deeper reason 


(ae JUSTIN MARTYR. 


for the toleration of Christianity than could be given 
by any merely legal argument. 

On what grounds, then, did Justin base his demand 
for toleration? He could not show that Christianity 
ons was entitled to recognition as a national form 
eae era of worship; for such it was not, least of all 
was philoso- in Justin’s mind. It knew no locality for 
Urs its home, no nation for its special possessor. 
On what ground, then, could its apologist plead for tol- 
eration, and the Christian societies for liberty of wor- 
ship? Justin was led by the bent of his own mind, 
and perhaps by a shrewd appreciation of the real force 
of the plea, to appeal for toleration on what, under the 
circumstances, were the strongest grounds which he could 
have taken. He presented Christianity as a philosophy, 
and joined therewith a description of the moral purity 
of the Christians and the innocence and simplicity of 
their worship. The first of these pleas constituted his 
real, positive argument for toleration. The second was 
meant to remove suspicion and give force to the first. 
Christianity was a philosophy. Why, then, should it 
be persecuted? Why should liberty of thought be 
curtailed ? 

That such was actually Justin’s plea will appear 
from his language. Though it is in the Dialogue that 
he formally declares Christianity to be the true phi- 
losophy,! yet this idea moulds the Apologies and forms 
their fundamental thought. He appeals to the ru- 
lers, as philosophers, to be governed by reason rather 
than custom in their treatment of the Christians? He 
declares that Christ is the incarnate Reason of God, 
who had formerly enlightened Socrates and others, 
and whom the evil demons had always opposed.2 He 

1 Dial. 8. BWA TiO /Se:.\\)' 4nd WipApReee 


JUSTIN AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 75 


compares the differences among Christians to those 
among philosophers, who, however, are not indiscrimi- 
nately condemned.!' He dwells on the reasonableness 
of the Christian worship of God? in contrast to the 
follies of idol-worship, and explains the non-political 
character of his aims and hopes. He exhibits the 
ethical teaching of Christ,t frequently shows that the 
Christian doctrines were such as in whole or in part 
had been taught by honored philosophic teachers or 
schools,®> and even points out resemblances between 
the facts of Christ’s life and the fables of mythology.® 
He reminds his readers of the varieties of heathenism 
itself,7 and endeavors to give a rational explanation of 
the world’s hatred of the Christians by attributing it 
to the hostility which in all ages the evil spirits had 
aroused against truth and goodness.§ For the same 
purpose he enters at length upon the proof of Chris- 
tianity from prophecy. This may seem a method of 
proof little likely to have affected his pagan readers, 
yet it was not so ineffective as we would suppose. It 
would at least impress them as convincing, if true. We 
know that the Stoics attributed great value to proph- 
ecy ; Ὁ while the frequent use of this method of proof 
by the early Apologists generally certainly implies that 
it appealed strongly not only to their own minds but 
to the mind of their age. In fine, Justin represents 
Christianity 11 as the complete manifestation of Reason, 
accredited as such by its fulfilment of prophecy. He 


aps 1 fe 2 Ap. i. 10, 18. 

@ Ap. i. 11. 4 Ap. i. 15-17. 

5 Ap. i. 6, 8, 18, 20, 59; 11. 8. 6 Ap. i. 21, 22. 

7 Ap. OAs 8 Ap. i. 14, 26; ii. 8. 
9 Ap. i. 31-53. 


10 Cf. Zeller’s Outlines of Greek Philosophy, p. 254. 
τ Ap. ia 


76 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


exhibits it as the perfect philosophy, of which other 
systems had been partial gleams; as the final truth 
which had made God known, and duty plain, and future 
retribution certain, — the truth, therefore, against which 
error and evil had always waged war, and which must 
always expect to receive the blows and the sneers of a 
misguided world. 

It is not my purpose here to indicate the place 
which these views took in Justin’s theology, but simply 
Plausibility to point out their bearing on his defence of 
ofhis pleae Christianity. Ifa philosophy, why should it 
be proscribed ? Were not philosophers of all kinds free 
to teach their peculiar doctrines? Were they not to be 
met in every city? Did they not found schools? Why 
should this particular set of opinions, which contained 
so many elements with which the most illustrious phi- 
losophers agreed, be alone condemned merely for its 
name? Such, if I mistake not, was the real substance 
of Justin’s plea, and it is not hard to perceive both its 
force and its weakness. 

It was a plausible plea. If Christianity had really 
been nothing but a philosophy, it would probably never 
have been persecuted. Justin may well have felt that 
his presentation of the case would commend his cause 
to cultured readers. For such he chiefly wrote. He 
spoke as a philosopher as well as a Christian, and to 
the philosophic as well as to the popular ear he ad- 
dressed his words. He ever had in mind the “ philo- 
sophic Czesar” as well as the “ pious Emperor,” and he 
may have not unreasonably expected that the just and 
gentle Antoninus would agree with the young philoso- 
pher who shared his throne in granting freedom of 
opinion and of speech to every school of thought. In 


1 Cf. Lect. IV. 


JUSTIN AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. ΤΠ 


view of the universal respect paid to philosophy, why 
should not Christian philosophy be tolerated? In view 
of the prevailingly theological character of nearly all 
philosophy at that period, why should not the Chris- 
tian doctrine of God be also permitted? In view 
of the manifest affinity of many of Justin’s ideas with 
those of the honored master of the Academy, in view 
of the Apologist’s sympathy with philosophical doc- 
trines and use of philosophical language, why should 
he and his fellow-believers be classed with the super- 
stitious, and punished as enemies of the State? Justin 
seems to have honestly felt that no reasonable prince, 
who knew the real character of the Christian doctrine 
and life, could fail to admit that such teaching ought 
not to be proscribed. This was anew way of 
defending Christianity. Never before, unless 
in the lost Apologies of Aristides and Quadratus, had 
it been boldly claimed by an orthodox Christian writer 
that his doctrine was the superior on their own ground 
of those of the Academy and the Porch. By some 
of Justin’s successors the affinity of Christianity and 
philosophy was openly repudiated! But his position 
was more likely to win for his cause a hearing; and 
if his Apology ever reached those for whom it was in- 
tended, if it was ever seriously read by any cultivated 
heathen, the reader must have felt that, however in- 
credible Christianity might be, it was assuming a new 
and more intelligible form, and that its prayer for 
liberty was not wholly unreasonable. 

And yet, plausible and novel as Justin’s plea was, it 
was hopeless, if for no other reason than be- Tighopeless. 
cause it was in fact only a one-sided presenta- a one-sided 


. a EOE DI resentation 
tion of the case. For Christianity was more of facts. 


Its novelty. 


1 So Tatian, Hermias, and, later, Tertullian. 


78 ᾿ JUSTIN MARTYR. 


than a philosophy. It was an association. It was a so- 
ciety which met in secret, was rapidly spreading over 
- the Empire, and was firm in its refusal to adore the em- 
peror. The worship of the emperors was assiduously 
fostered by the Antonines. Their humanity and their 
philosophy did not prevent their insistence on it. Their 
desire to strengthen the unity of the Empire led them 
to encourage it. It was vain, therefore, to say that the 
Christian societies, with their unauthorized meetings 
and their refusal to take in the usual form the oath of 
allegiance, were but a collection of philosophers. The 
facts were against Justin’s plea. Christianity was more 
than a philosophy. Without meaning to be disloyal, 
by its war with heathenism it was undermining the 
foundations of the State, which rested upon heathenism. 
It was by its very nature a social revolution. Neither 
friend nor foe could then perceive what was involved 
in the progress of the new religion. But while the 
reports circulated against it were false, it was not 
the politically harmless thing which Justin innocently 
sought to represent it; and while philosophers greeted 
with scorn his claim to be a philosopher, the magistrates 
and the people were as little likely to regard him and 
his co-religionists as aught but a disloyal faction. 

But if Justin’s presentation of Christianity as a phi- 
losophy was not likely to obtain for it the toleration 
foe ne sought, his description of the moral teach- 
mention ing and living of the Christians was more 
of the Chris- likely to impress his readers. As we have 
ee said, his exhibition of Christianity as a phi- 
losophy seems to have been his real, positive argument 
in its defence. Yet, on the purity of its teaching, on 
the morality of its followers, on the simplicity of its 
ceremonies, he laid no little stress. It was necessary for 


JUSTIN AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 79 


him to do this, in order to meet the sneers and slanders 
of its foes. In order to refute the popular reports, in 
order to remove the prejudices of higher circles, in 
order to appeal to the conscience of the better part of 
the community, in order to dispel the prevalent idea 
that Christians were dangerous to society, he set forth 
the habits of his fellow-believers, — their moral ideals 
and hopes, their lofty aspirations and pure practices. 
Thus he cleared the way for the positive presentation 
of the reasonableness of Christianity and its truly phi- 
losophical character. 

Justin’s description of Christian morals is well worthy 
of attention. Of his particular replies to the charges 
of atheism and disloyalty, we have already spoken. 
Of his description of the Christian ceremonies nq the sim- 
it is sufficient here to say that he represents flicity of 
them as very simple and entirely innocent. toms. 

The rite of initiation! was but washing with water “in 
the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, 
and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.” 
This was to the convert a self-dedication to God, an 
assumption of Christian duty, a new birth into purity 
and knowledge. He describes in like manner the simple 
ceremony of the Eucharist ;2 and while he evidently re- 
garded both baptism and the Eucharist as rites which 
conveyed some mystical benefit, yet he was careful to 
show their perfect purity. At the weekly assemblies of 
the Christians,* naught was done except to read “the 
memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the Pro- 
phets,” to listen to an exhortation from the presiding 
officer, to pray, to celebrate the Eucharist, and to make 
offerings for the needy. Yet it is not so much in these 

1 Ap. i. 61. 2 Ap. i. 65. 

* Cf. Leet. VL 4 Ap. i. 67. 


SO. JUSTIN MARTYR. 


formal descriptions that Justin exhibits the moral char- 
acter of the Christians as in phrases and facts which 
His testi: are scattered through the Apology. He shows 


mony to ole 
their noble US men and women who were absolutely 
living. without fear of death, who loved truth more 


than life,2 and yet who, while willing to depart from the 
scene of trouble, deemed it a duty to preserve life so 
long as God, the giver, delayed to take 108 Here were 
persons who lived in the earnest desire for fellowship 
with God,* who were resting their hope of the future 
upon God’s promises alone, who felt the duty of faithful 
obedience to Him and ever remembered that to Him 
they were to render their account.® Here, says Justin 
are “ we who formerly delighted in fornication, but now 
embrace chastity alone; we who formerly used magi- 
cal arts, now dedicate ourselves to the good and un- 
begotten God; we who valued above all things the 
acquisition of wealth and possessions, now bring what 
we have into a common stock and communicate to 
every one in need; we who hated and destroyed one 
another and on account of different customs would not 
even use the same fireplace with men of another race, 
now, since the appearance of Christ, live familiarly 
with them, and pray for our enemies, and try to per- 
suade those who unjustly hate us to live according to 
the good precepts of Christ, to the end that they may 
become partakers with us of the same joyful hope of a 
reward from God, the Ruler of 411. He then cites ex- 
amples of Christ’s teaching, taken mostly from the Ser- 
mon on the Mount, — directions to be pure, temperate, 
and generous.’ He boldly 8 sets the Christian morals in 


1 Ap. i. 2, 11, 45; ii. 2; Dial. 30. 2 Ap. i. 23 11. 5. 
3 Ap. ii. 4. 4 Ap. i. 8, 14, 25, 49. δ᾽ Ap. ii. 8. 
6 Ap. i. 14. 7 Ap. i. 15, ete. 8. Ap ior. 


— 


JUSTIN AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 81 


contrast with the horrible vices of pagan society, and 
speaks of the Christians’ care for children,! their solemn 
estimate of the value of human life,? their peaceable- 
ness,? their pity for their enemies and desire to save 
them, their patience and prayerfulness even when per- 
secuted,® their wide philanthropy. He evinces in him- 
self, and he describes in others, a quickened sense of 
the inherent difference between right and wrong’ and 
of man’s responsibility for his moral choice. Through 
all these virtues there also shines a strong, bright hope ® 
of personal immortality, of divine reward, and of the 
final destruction of the devil and his works. Chris- 
tianity is thus shown to have been a real change of life, 
a practical communism, a universal brotherhood.” Jus- 
tin, in common with later Apologists, does not hesitate 
to assail fiercely the follies and immoralities of pagan- 
ism. He declares it to have been the work of demons ;4 
he scorns and ridicules its idolatry; he points out its 
contradictions,” and denounces its impure stories!* and 
shameless rites’* He could safely do so, for pagan 
writers themselves had already done the same. But he 
even dares to denounce the more recent deification of 
Antinous,® in order to exhibit in still more glaring 
contrast the lofty ideal of purity which the Christians 
displayed. He writes not as the satirist, but as the in- 
tense moralist. He was himself filled with enthusiasm 
for morality, and in this he claimed to represent all true 


1 Ap. i. 27. 2 Ap. i..29. 

8 Ap. i. 39. 4 Ap. i. 57; Dial. 133. 

5 Dial. 18. 6 Dial. 93, 110. 

7 Ap. ii. 7, ete. 8 Ap.i. 10; Dial. 124, 140. 
5. Ἄρει 1Τ εν τ 8: 10 Ap. i. 14, 67. 

11 Ap. i. 5, 23, 54, 64; ii. 5. 2 Ap. i. 9. 

18 Ap. i. 24. 14 Ap. i. 25. 

15 Ap. i. 12. 16 Ap. i. 29. 


$2. > JUSTIN MARTYR. 


Christians. These men, therefore, were wholly different 
from what slander reported. They had totally repu- 
diated the vices of pagan religion and life’ Holiness 
was their aim. Universal love was their motive. Fi- 
delity in all human relations was practised by them 
because of the fidelity due to God. Truth, purity, gen- 
erosity, humility with fearlessness, patience with cour- 
age, were their characteristic traits. They had broken 
down the barriers of class and nation. They sought 
to love even their enemies. They had risen above 
the fear of death. They lived as in the presence of 
the Almighty, and expected their reward from Him. 
They might be slain, but they could not be injured} 
since they believed death for Christ’s sake to be only 
a deliverance. 

Tt is evident that such a lofty morality would do 
more to commend Christianity than volumes of learned 
Power of this Apologies. Justin declares that his obser- 
argument. - yation in former years of the Christian char- 
acter had much to do with his own conversion? and 
that many others also had been converted by the same 
practical demonstration? This we can well believe. 
While philosophers disproved Christianity, while the 
magistrates oppressed and the populace assaulted the 
followers of Christ, while Apologists vainly argued for 
their faith, the actual moral power of the new religion 
was quietly impressing thousands of men and women, 
and slowly but surely pervading society. Such is the 
picture which Justin gives. “No one,” he says, “was 
persuaded by Socrates to die for this doctrine; but in 
Christ, who was partially known even by Socrates, not 
only philosophers and scholars believed, but also arti- 
sans and people entirely uneducated, despising both 


Ap. 1.2, 2 Ap. ii 12. 2 Ap. i. 16. 


JUSTIN AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 83 


glory and fear and death, since He is a power of the 
ineffable Father, and not the mere instrument of human 
reason.” } 

It was in vain that Justin pleaded for toleration. It 
was in vain that he proclaimed the true philosophy, and 
furnished proofs of the truth of Christ’s claims, and 
described the pure ideal of Christian life. But as we 
consider the picture which he gives of the progress 
of this moral enthusiasm and godly life in whence 
the face of hatred and persecution, we are 27S ‘his | 
led to ask what explanation can be drawn *¥? 
from him of so singular a phenomenon in the Roman 
Empire. How came it that men were thus not only 
suddenly possessed of such lofty ideals, but were able 
to follow such unselfish and holy practices? How 
arose this vivid sense of an almighty but personal God, 
this quickening of conscience, this confident hope not 
only of immortality but of eternal happiness, this uni- 
versal love, this new valuation of human rights and hu- 
man life, this intense yet practical, this holy yet pitiful 
religion, with its bold defiance of suffering and death, its 
pure and patient life? The answer, at least of Justin, is 
very clear. All was due, he says, to the actual incarna- 
tion of the Son of God.2_ The divine Logos had always 
indeed been in the world? but the suggestions of reason 
had been overcome by the power of the demons. It 
was by His actually becoming man that Christianity 
arose. We shall find occasion hereafter to point out 
what we think to have been errors in Justin’s concep- 
tion of God and of the Logos.t We shall observe, also, 
an incompleteness in his idea of the way in which 
Christ saves, at least as viewed by the standard of 


1 Ap. ii. 10. 2 Ap. i. 5, 13, 14; ii. 13, ete. 
8 Ap. i. 5, 46; ii. 13. € Cf. Lect. IV. 


SA es JUSTIN MARTYR. 


New Testament teaching. But there is no doubt that 
Justin’s faith and philosophy, his doctrine and life, 
turned on the fact of the Incarnation; and he declares 
the same great fact to be the foundation of all Chris- 
tianity. It was the teaching of Christ which had given 
men their new ideal. It was the life, words, death, and 
resurrection of Christ which had created their hope, had 
brought life and immortality to light, had made them 
fearless and pure. It was the historical Christ, as they 
had heard of and believed in Him, who had made God 
once more real to men, and had united them to God in 
reverent love and to one another in brotherly fellow- 
ship. Such, at least, was the foundation of Christian- 
ity in the mind of Justin. The actual appearance on 
earth of the Divine Son had given the new doctrines 
which men were believing and the new rules which 
they were following. This was the force to which these 
early Christians were conscious of yielding, and which 
moulded their religious experience. It was the histori- 
cal Christ who in their thoughts had created Christi- 
anity. In Him they believed, and Him they loved and 
served; and in view of the deep gulf which lay between 
their practical morality and that of the society about 
them, and in view of the proved inability of even the 
best philosophy to produce on such a large scale a simi- 
lar moral life, is it possible to believe that they were 
regenerated by a fiction ? 


LECTURE III. 


THE TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN TO THE RELATIONS OF 
GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 


HILE Justin is best known as an Apologist, more 

interest has attached in modern times to the 
evidence which he affords of the mutual rela- τ με οἱ 

tions of Gentile and Jewish Christianity in the Justin’s tes- 


timony to 
post-apostolic age. In his larger Apology he the relations 


describes and quotes from the Old Testament, ἘΠ Sowa 
and expresses his valuation of the prophets, Cheeta 
thus exhibiting his attitude to the Hebrew revelation ; 
while other expressions show incidentally his position 
toward not only Judaism but Jewish Christianity. 
This appears still more clearly, as we would expect, in 
the Dialogue with Trypho. There he formally combats 
Judaism. He thus states explicitly the way in which 
he looked upon the old dispensation. In the course of 
the Dialogue, also, he openly expresses his opinion 
about Jewish Christians. If we add to this his testi- 
mony as to the origin and character of the majority of 
Christians in his day, his expressions concerning the 
authority of the Apostles, his treatment of those doc- 
trines which would naturally come into debate between 
Jew and Gentile, and finally his claim to speak for the 
majority of the Christian community, we shall perceive 
that he is an important witness to what were the actual 
relations of these two sides of early Christianity. 


86. JUSTIN MARTYR. 


The value of this part of Justin’s testimony is, of 
course, greatly increased by the modern critical theories 
+ of the apostolic and post-apostolic ages. Ra- 
rationalistic tionalistic criticism seeks to explain the rise 
Cau of the Catholic Christianity which was con- 
fessedly established by the time of Irenzeus on the sup- 
The Tibin- Position that it was from beginning to end 
gen scheme. 4 natural process. It alleges that so far 
from Christianity having been taught and the Church 
founded in the way set forth by our New Testa- 
ment, these were a growth which gathered around the 
simple moral teaching of Jesus, through the addition 
thereto of ideas which were already germinating in 
Gentile and Jewish thought, and which combined to 
form the Christian beliefs and societies of the first and 
second centuries. The corner-stone of these rationalistic 
theories is the alleged opposition between Paul and the 
original Apostles, which is claimed to be proved from 
those epistles of Paul which are admitted by the critics 
as genuine. Original Christianity was, they tell us, 
entirely Jewish. Paul, realizing the universality of the 
Gospel, proclaimed that all men might be saved through 
faith alone, and hence that, Christ being the end of the 
law to every one that believeth, the Jewish economy 
was abolished. This, it 15 said, the original Apostles 
denied ; and thus there arose two types of Christianity, — 
the Pauline or Gentile, and the apostolic or Jewish, — 
which were antagonistic to each other. When the apos- 
tolic age drew to a close, however, these two divisions 
began to come together. The spread of Pauline Christi- 
anity and the political calamities which befell the Jews 
led the Jewish Christians to make concessions. The 
death of Paul was followed by a less determined hostility 
to Judaism among his followers. Concessions became 


GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 87 


mutual. The need of unity in the face of the world’s 
opposition was more deeply felt. Church organization 
became more fixed and ecclesiastical power centralized, 
and thus the truth held in common was exalted above 
the points in which men differed. The extreme views 
of some aided the coalition of the more moderate of 
both sides. Practical necessities dulled the edge of 
theological rancor and personal animosities. Finally, 
the union became complete. The extreme views of Paul 
were toned down. The spirit of the Jewish law and 
hierarchy united with Paul’s doctrine of the univer- 
salism of the new religion; but Paul himself, as the 
special object of Jewish dislike, was relegated to the 
background, and Peter came to be reckoned as the true 
founder of the Church. Catholic Christianity, a con- 
fused medley of the originally opposing views, was the 
result ; and the union of the two parties was so perfect 
that by the end of the second century all remembrance 
of the division of the Apostles had been blotted out. 
Along the lines, then, of these two periods of conflict 
and reconciliation, the books of the New Testament and 
the remains of post-apostolic literature are placed by the 
critics, and the development of early Christian thought 
and life is correspondingly described. Of course it is 
admitted that the facts should determine our theories ; 
but amid the scanty testimony which survives from this 
period, the internal evidence of the books themselves 
has been chiefly relied upon to determine their dates 
according to the requirements of the theories. Conse- 
quently the traditional origin of many of the New Tes- 
tament books has been denied. By their supposed 
doctrinal or ecclesiastical or even personal “tendencies,” 
they have been assigned to this or that phase of the 
formation of Christianity. The value of the New Testa- 


88 . JUSTIN MARTYR. 


ment histories has thus been undermined. The phases 
of New Testament doctrine have been attributed to the 
natural development of thought, to reaction from oppos- 
ing views, and to contact with outside philosophy and 
life. The resulting Christianity is represented not as 
a revelation, but as the expression by the human mind 
of certain religious and moral truths in dogmatic forms 
and historical narratives which were but the accidents 
of their birth. 

Such is, in brief, the famous Tiibingen reconstruction 
of early Christian history, of which F. C. Baur’s “ The 
Modifica- Christianity and the Christian Church of the 
Pee First Three Centuries,” published in 1853, is 
pchemice still the completest representative. Baur was 
joined by other scholars whose industry pursued the 
subject into the minutest details; and it is but fair to 
admit that the investigations to which the Tibingen 
theory led both friend and foe have resulted in a clearer 
conception of the historical relations of early Christian 
literature than Biblical scholarship had ever before pos- 
sessed. Nevertheless, the earlier forms of this theory 
have now been generally abandoned. Its extreme po- 
sitions have in many cases been retracted by rational- 
istic scholars themselves! The evidence for an earlier 
date of the principal New Testament books than it 
would allow has been freshly exhibited. It has been 
shown that other forces besides those originally sup- 


1 Cf. e.g. Hilgenfeld’s Review of “Supernatural Religion ” in 
Zeitschr. fiir wissensch. Theol. xviii. 582, where he admits that 
Barnabas used ὡς γέγραπται of Matt. xxii. 14; that the to him 
pseudo-Ignatius used our Gospels; that Papias’s Matthew, though 
not ours, was not a mere collection of Christ’s words, and that 
we can hardly distinguish his Mark from ours; that Justin used 
our Gospels with one or more others; and that Marcion’s Gospel 
was not independent of Luke’s. 


GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 89 


posed must be admitted to have co-operated to produce 
the result. Especially has the Alexandrian philosophy 
been made to play a larger part in the modification of 
Paul’s teaching ;! and the period of the reconciliation of 
the antagonistic parties has been pushed back from the 
second to the first half of the second century, and its 
beginnings assigned even to the apostolic age itself? I 
am speaking now from the standpoint of the rationalistic 
critics. But, in fact, I should go further. The Johan- 
nean authorship of the Fourth Gospel, the composition 
of the Synoptic Gospels in the first century, the authen- 
ticity of the later Pauline epistles, and the genuineness 
of the seven short Greek epistles of Ignatius have, we 
believe, been firmly re-established, and thereby the whole 
Tiibingen scheme overthrown. Still its essential spirit 
remains, and by some writers is carried to extreme 
lengths? The antagonism between Paul and the ori- 
ginal Apostles is now indeed represented as less violent 
than was at first maintained, and is said to have only 
originated after the events at Antioch described in Gala- 
tians ii A moderate party, also, is now recognized as 
having existed from the first among the Jewish Chris- 
tians ;° while among the Gentile Christians, on the other 


1 Cf. 6. g. Pfleiderer’s Paulinism, vol. ii. chap. ix. 

2 Cf. Ibid., ii. 38, ete. (on the Epistle to the Romans). 

3 Cf. Pfleiderer’s Paulinism, and the same author’s “ Influence 
of the Apostle Paul on the Development of Christianity,” Hib- 
bert Lectures, 1885. Volkmar’s Jesus Nazarenus, 1882. See 
also Weiss’s Einleitung, 1886, pp. 9-18, for a brief review of the 
Tubingen and more recent schools. 

* Cf. e.g. Holtzmann’s “ Der Apostelconyent,” Zeitschr. fiir 
wissensch. Theol., 1883, pp. 129, ete.; and Holsten, quoted by 
Weiss, Einleitung, p. 14; and Pfleiderer’s Paulinism, ii. 8, ete., 
Hibbert Lectures, ch. ii. 

5 Cf. Pfleiderer, Hibbert Lectures. 


GO JUSTIN MARTYR. 


hand, Hilgenfeld! distinguishes from the Paulinists a 
party which was Jewish-Christian in spit and claimed 
to follow the original Apostles. But in spite of these im- 
Its spirit re- portant modifications of the theory, in spite of 
hawt the additional parties into which the early 
Church has had to be divided and the admission of 
which gives the impression that the theory itself is in a 
stage of dissolution, the fundamental thesis of the divi- 
sion of the Apostles and of the apostolic Church into two 
hostile or at least independent parties is still assumed ; 
the narrative of the Acts is still held to represent the 
principles of compromise or fusion which in the second 
century were established ; and therefore whatever will 
throw lght upon the relations of primitive Gentile and 
Jewish Christianity becomes of the highest service. 
Another view of the second century was adopted by 
Ritschl,? who was himself reared in the Tiibingen school, 
Ritschl’s and has been widely followed by critics of 
vey: various tendencies. He denied that Catholic 
Christianity was the result of the union of the Jewish 
and Pauline types, and insisted that the former ceased 
to grow, but that the latter degenerated from the views 
of its founder, and, by reason of forces acting wholly 
from within itself, descended to a more legalistic con- 
ception of religion. Ritschl maintained, therefore, that 
Catholic Christianity was wholly Gentile in its origin ; 
and he thus took a position quite different from that of 
his master Baur. Already Neander had declared that 
besides the influence of Judaism on Christianity, it is 
possible to detect in the development of Gentile Chris- 
tianity in the second century a tendency similar to 
1 Cf. Zeitschr. fiir wissensch. Theol., 1872, pp. 495, ete. 


2 Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche, 3d ed. 1857. 
8 Cf. his Ch. Hist., Amer. ed. i. 365. 


GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 91 


Judaism but born of paganism itself; and the theory of 
Ritschl served at least to show that there was not nearly 
so much need of assuming a compromise with Jewish 
principles in explaining the phenomena of the early 
Church as had been supposed. Ritschl’s view not only 
influenced rationalistic scholars,! but has also been fol- 
lowed in modified forms by scholars who wholly deny 
the alleged division of the Apostles. The most recent 
critic on Justin, Von Engelhardt,? carries the Ritschlian 
view so far as to make Justin essentially pagan in his 
modes of thought, and the Christianity of his day wholly 
unaffected by later Judaism. Thus Justin again appears 
as one of the most important witnesses in the question 
at issue. We find in him a witness whose fJmportance 
testimony is specially valuable for the simple aan 
reason that the date of his writings 1s gener- statements. 
ally admitted. We strenuously object to the habit of 
determining the dates of early Christian books by the 
places which they are made to fill in the various schemes 
of early Christianity. We hold at least that this is often 
done in such wise as to be practically a begging of the 
question, and we turn, therefore, with more confidence 
to Justin, about whose date there is no serious doubt. 
His testimony should go far toward determining our 
opinion of the condition of affairs in the generation 
preceding him as well as in his own. 

Before examining his testimony, however, it is proper 
to repeat the caution that we should not expect too 
much from it. The criticism of the New Testament 


1 Cf. Overbeck’s “Das Verhiiltniss Justins des Miartyrers zur 
Apostelgeschichte,” Zeitschr. fiir wissensch. Theol., 1872, p. 305; 
and Weizsiicker’s “ Die Theologie des Mirtyrers Justinus,” Jahrb. 
fiir deutsche Theol., 1867 (vol. xii.), p. 60. 

2 Das Christenthum Justins des Mirtyrers, Erlangen, 1878. 


92 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


books themselves must furnish the main source for our 
knowledge of the apostolic age. If it be not true that 
the Pauline Epistles contradict the Acts of the Apostles, 
if it be not true that the Synoptists and the Fourth 
Evangelist contradict one another, if it can be shown 
that the evidence for the Pastoral Epistles and First 
Peter and the Hebrews points to a date agreeable to the 
traditional view, then the foundation of the rationalistic 
criticism melts away and leaves it a castle in the air. 
But the condition of affairs in the second century is im- 
portant, though subsidiary, testimony. It forms part of 
the historical evidence for the literature and history of 
the first. It may be reasonably expected to exhibit the 
effects of causes alleged to have operated in the first, 
as well as to reveal additional causes which modified 
those of an earlier time. From it we may logically look 
back; so that the testimony of Justin to the relations 
of Jewish and Gentile Christianity, or of Christianity 
and Judaism, may contribute to our understanding of 
original Christianity itself. 


Let us begin, then, with Justin’s use and valuation of 
the Old Testament. He quoted it copiously, not only 
Wetimate in the Dialogue with Trypho, but also in the 


placed on : Ϊ 
pe Old Tes. Larger Apology. He used the Septuagint 
tament. translation, and after having described ! how 


Ptolemy procured its translation from the Hebrew, re- 
fers the readers of the Apology, not to the Jews, but to 
the Egyptians, as preservers of the sacred volume. If 
it be thought that he did this in order to increase the 
confidence of his pagan readers in the prophets, it is yet 
to be observed that he entirely distrusted the Jews’ 


1 Ap. i. 31. Justin makes the astonishing mistake of saying 
that Ptolemy procured the Hebrew Scriptures from Herod. 


GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 93 


copies of their own Scriptures, alleging that these had 
been altered through hostility to the Christians! At 
any rate, the Septuagint was for him the correct expres- 
sion of the language of the prophets. 

This collection, then, Justin considered infallibly in- 
spired. He calls it “the Scripture,”? or “the Scrip- 
tures,’ or simply “Scriptures,” * and again 15 inspira- 
“the holy Scriptures.”® He calls it “the %™ 
Word of God,’® “the Word from God,’? and again 
simply “the Word.”® More particularly, the writers 
were “prophets of God,” through whom “the prophetic 
Spirit’ spake. Elsewhere he says that “God” spake 
through them,!° and again that the divine Logos did 
They were therefore “inspired” ? and “inhabited by 
the Spirit,” 15 or “ filled with the Holy Spirit.”1* Their 
writings do not contradict one another,™ nor can any 
fault be found with them, if their meaning be under- 
stood. The collection of Hebrew Scripture, in fine, was 

1 Ap. i. 41; Dial. 71-73, 124. Cf. also Dial. 68, 181, 187. Cf. 
also Lect. I. Justin, however, was not ignorant of the Hebrew 
text (Dial. 124, 131), nor of the interpretations adopted by the 
Palestinian Jews (Dial. 68), though certainly his explanation of 
the etymology of Σατανᾶς (“apostate serpent,” Dial. 103, Otto’s 
note) and Ἰσραὴλ (“man conquering strength,” Dial. 125) do 
not indicate thorough acquaintance with the Hebrew language. 
Cf. Kaye’s Justin Martyr, p. 19. 

2 ἡ γραφὴ. Dial. 37, 56, 60, 84. 

8 ai γραφαὶ. Dial. 39, 56, 86, 119. 

4 γραφαὶ. Dial. 75. 5 Dial. 55. 

ὁ ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος. Dial. 38, 58, 62, 63, 141. 

7 παρὰ tov θεοῦ. Ap. i. 53. 

8 Dial. 56, 92, 102, 103, 117, 129, 137. 

9. Ap. i. 31, 32, 35, 38, 39, ete.; Dial. 7, 34. 

10 Cf. e.g. Ap. i. 40; Dial. 15. 11 Ap. i. 33, 36. 

] 12 θεοφοροῦνται. Ap. i. 33, 84. 

18 ἐμπεπνευσμένοι. Ap. i. 36. τὸ ἐν τοῖς προφήταις πνεῦμα. 
Dial. 52. 

16 Dial. 7. 15 Dial. 65. 16 Dial. 112. 


94 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


regarded by Justin as in the highest sense an inspired 
volume, a series of infallible communications of truth 
from God by His Logos through the Spirit. 

Looking still more closely, we find that Justin’s high 
valuation of the Old Testament rested on his high 
The proph- Valuation of the prophets themselves. He 
εἰς: approached the subject in the spirit of an 
inquirer seeking reasons for belief in Christianity; and 
he found these in the marvellous predictions and antici- 
pations of the latter which were contained in the pro- 
phetical writings. The Old Testament, therefore, was to 
Justin the “writings of the prophets.”? Through them, 
either when in trance or otherwise,? the divine Word, 
or Spirit, preached the eternal truth which was after- 
wards to be taught by Christ, and predicted, explicitly 
or in figure, the events of Christ’s life and of apostolic 
history. Justin, as we shall see, regarded the divine 
Logos as the only medium of revelation, and as having 
always been in the world making the truth known to 
those able to receive it. But through the prophets the 
Logos particularly spoke. By the prediction of what 
had subsequently occurred as well as by the miracles 
which they wrought,® were they authenticated as mes- 
sengers from God. From them, in fact, Justin, like 
other Christian writers of his day, maintained that the 
Greek philosophers had learned much of their wisdom, 
and even the demons had learned against what to direct 
their wicked efforts.6 The prophets appealed to his 


1 Ap. i. 23, 31, ete.; Dial. 7, 52, 136. 

2 Dial. 115, where the special mention of Zechariah’s ἔκστασις 
shows that Justin did not consider inspiration as always a state 
in which the ordinary faculties were suspended. The contrary 
view is expressed in the Cohortatio, viii., which is not Justinian. 

8 Ap. i. 44; Dial. 136. 4 Ap. i. 31, ete.; Dial. passim. 

6 Ap. i. 31; Dial. 7. 6 Ap. i. 23, 31, 44, 54, 59, 60. 


GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 95 


mind as the most convincing proof of Christianity ; and 
while their prominence in his writings was no doubt 
partly due to the nature of the latter as addressed to 
pagans and Jews, yet it is clear that the miraculous 
testimony borne by the prophets to Christianity un- 
derlay the high estimate which Justin placed upon the 
Hebrew Scriptures as a whole. 

This is confirmed by his use and interpretations of 
the prophecies. He finds in them, as suits his pur- 
pose, either a writing beforehand of Christian Henle 
history, or a plain declaration of Christian interpreta- 
doctrine, or else mystical utterances and ac- ἜΗΙ 
tions intended to both conceal and exhibit later teach- 
ing or facts! His method of interpretation combined 
excessive literalism with a speculative search in the 
letter of Scripture for hidden meanings. He speaks of 
the intentional obscurity of Scripture ;? finds Christ 
and Christianity typified or openly taught on every 
page; sees the cross predicted no less in the shape in 


1 Thus, to take one illustration, he quotes (Ap. i. 32; cf. also 
Dial. 54) Gen. xlix. 10: “ The sceptre shall not depart from Ju- 
dah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until He come for 
whom it is reserved; and He shall be the desire of the nations, 
binding His foal to the vine, washing His robe in the blood of the 
grape.” This, he says, predicted, first, the continuance of Jewish 
civil power until the time of Christ, after whom the Romans took 
possession of the land. Then, “He shall be the desire of the 
nations ” predicted the present expectation among the Gentiles 
of the second advent. “Binding His foal to the vine” predicted 
Christ’s triumphant entry into Jerusalem; while the sentence 
“washing His robe in the blood of the grape” was prophetic of 
His “cleansing by His blood those who believe on Him,” for be- 
lievers are “ His robe,” since the Logos dwells in them; and the 
“blood of the grape” was a symbol of His own blood, and so 
called, because He came not of human generation, but, like the 
grape, of divine power. 

2 Dial. 68. 


96° JUSTIN MARTYR. 


which the paschal lamb was dressed for roasting! than 
in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah itself;? finds in 
Malachi’s word about the “pure offering” a prediction 
of the Eucharist in “the twelve bells on the high- 
priest’s robe” a symbol of the Apostles, and in the 
Nineteenth Psalm a description of the spread of Chris- 
tianity.4 These are but a few samples of his method of 
interpretation. We must judge it by the habits of his 
day. It rested on the same principle as the exegesis of 
the Jews themselves, as Justin himself points out. It 
was evidently the same method of which the Alexan- 
drian Jews made use to discover their philosophy in 
the writings of Moses.6 Nay, it was the common way 
of interpreting prophecies among the Gentiles as well 
as among the Jews, as may be implied in the fact that 
Justin places the Sibyl and Hystaspes’ side by side 
with the prophets. 

But the important point is that to Justin the Old 
Testament was purely a Christian book. He says® to 
The Ola Trypho, “ Your Scriptures are not yours, but 
a amene, ours.” “The law of the Lord,” which in the 
book. Nineteenth Psalm is called “ perfect,’ is not 
the Mosaic, but the Christian law. The prophets taught 
just what Christ taught, but in parts and by figures. 
True, the Old Testament contains some injunctions in- 
tended only for the Jews; but in his own estimation 


1 Dial. 40. 2 Ap. i. 50. 

8 Dial. 117, etc. Sothe “ Didache,” 14. 

4 Ap.i. 11. 6 Dial. 112. 

6 Cf. Zeller’s Outlines of Greek Philosophy, p. 320. 
7 Ap. i. 20, 44. 8 Dial. 29. 


9. Dial. 34. 80, speaking of Zechariah’s vision of Joshua, the 
high-priest, Justin says (Dial. 116): “I assert that even that reve- 
lation was made for us who believe on Christ the High-Priest.” 

10 Ap. i. 23, 44; ii. 8. 11 Dial. 44. 


GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 97 


and use of it, Justin passes over these to represent it 
as a book of Christian doctrine directing what Chris- 
tians are to believe and do. 

In the next place, the question arises, How did Justin 
regard the Hebrew dispensation? It must be admitted 
by all, we think, that at least in the Apology ‘he Hebrew 
he gives no indication that he looked upon “sensation. 
the relation of the Hebrews to God as having differed 
in any respect from that of other nations. He men- 
tions Socrates and Heraclitus before Abraham, Elias, and 
other Hebrews, as examples of men who lived confor- 
mably to truth before Christ came! He quotes Isaiah 
as declaring the constant unbelief of the Jews but the 
readiness of the Gentiles to accept the Gospel? He 
does not say, in describing the origin of the Old Testa- 
ment, that the prophets were Hebrews because of any 
special relation of the Hebrew people to God, but on 
the contrary does say that the Jews did not understand 
the prophets. In quoting Micah v. 2, as it is quoted 
in Matt. 11. 6, he significantly omits from the clause 
“who shall rule my people Israel” the word “ Israel.” 4 
He classes the Jews and the Samaritans together in 
distinction from the Gentiles. Certainly, the drift of 
these passages is to show that Justin looked upon the 
Hebrews as merely one of the nations. The fact that 
the prophets were of that people indicated to him no 
special superiority of the Hebrew race, while the latter’s 
inability to understand the prophets was a symptom of 
their extraordinary blindness of heart. If distinguished 

1 Ap. i. 46. 

2 Ap.i.53. The words cited by Justin are not found in Isaiah, 


but in Jer. ix. 26. This is an example of his numerous slips of 
memory. 
3 Ap. i. 31. 4 Ap. i. 34. So also Dial. 78. 
5 Ap. i. 53. 
7 


98 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


at all, it was for their unbelief. To this it may be added 
that in the smaller Apology? Justin explains that the 
Divine Son is called Christ “on account of his hav- 
ing been anointed and because God arranged all things 
through Him,’—a sentence which is remarkable for 
deriving the title of Messiah from the cosmical and 
universal work of the Logos, and which shows that the 
influence of Alexandrian philosophy had united with 
other forces in leading our Apologist far from the ori- 
ginal Jewish view. 

It may be said, however, that we should not expect 
to find in the Apologies a presentation of the peculiar 
vocation of the Hebrews. What, then, is the testimony 
of the Dialogue? We must reply that here also Justin 
shows himself far from able to appreciate the full rela- 
tion of the Hebrew and Christian dispensations. He 
knew, indeed, that God had specially favored the He- 
brews by choosing them for Himself, by delivering 
them from Egypt, by protecting them in the wilderness, 
and by pointing them to the coming Saviour2 He 
knew that God had given them a national law and 
covenant. But he declares that the Mosaic ceremonial 
was given them solely because of their sins. Meats 
were forbidden or allowed solely to keep God before 
their eyes.©5 The Sabbath, likewise, was instituted that 
they might not forget God, as they were specially prone 
to do Sacrifices were enjoined on them simply to 
keep them from joining in the idolatry of their neigh- 
bors.’ Circumcision was instituted actually to mark 
them out beforehand for punishment when they should 


1 Ap. ii. 6. κατὰ τὸ κεχρῖσθαι καὶ κοσμῆσαι τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ 
τὸν θεόν 

2 Dial. 130, 181. 8 Dial. 11. 4 Dial. 132. 

5 Dial. 20. 6 Dial. 21. 7 Dial. 22. 


GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 99 


have filled up the measure of their wickedness by cruci- 
fying Christ These rites never had any inherent value, 
as may be proved from the fact that the pious patriarchs 
did not observe them.2? In fact, God called the Hebrews 
“to conversion and repentance while in a sinful condi- 
tion and laboring under spiritual disease,’® and their 
ceremonial was intended only for themselves, partly as 
a restraint and partly as a punishment. Justin, how- 
ever, recognizes two elements in the Mosaic law, — the 
religious and moral element and the ritual* Both were 
incumbent on the Hebrews; but the ritual was designed 
to bring to their minds the religious and moral element,® 
and of this purpose its prefiguration of Christ was a part. 
Salvation, therefore, did not consist in performing the 
ritual, but in the doing “that which is universally, nat- 
turally, and eternally good.”® The prophets, indeed, 
repeated the ritual commands of Moses,’ but taught 
salvation through repentance for sin and doing right- 
eousness ;® and as now “the true, spiritual Israel are 
we who have been led to God through this crucified 
Christ,” so in old time God’s people were not the Jews 
as such, but only those who, like Abraham, Isaac, and 
Jacob, were well pleasing to Him. Hence, finally, the 
Mosaic law came to an end when Christ appeared and 
established the everlasting law and covenant.? The 
Jews have been signally condemned for their wicked- 
ness.!2 Only those can now be saved who “become 
acquainted with Christ, are washed in the fountain 
spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins, and for 
the rest live sinless lives,’ 


1 Dial. 16. 2 Dial. 19. 3 Dial. 30. 
4 Dial. 44. 5 Dial. 27. 6 Dial. 45. 
7 Dial. 27. 8 Dial. 12-15. 9 Dial. 43. 


10 Dial. 16, 74. 11 Dial. 44. 


100 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


From this it appears that Justin recognized that the 
Hebrews had been, at the beginning of their history, 
Tee selected by God as objects of His favor, but 
tion of Juda- that from the beginning and with increasing 
ait wilfulness they had as a nation rejected the 
divine teaching. Their ordinances had been meant for 
themselves alone; and while these contained a typical 
Christian element,! the rebelliousness of the people is 
made to have been the chief reason for their enactment. 
On the other hand, prophecy had always taught just what 
Christianity teaches, and had predicted the latter. Jews, 
as such, were not Israel, but only the righteous among 
them ; and the way of salvation had always lain in fol- 
lowing those moral and religious duties of which all 
men had some knowledge, which the prophets had 
preached, and which at last Christ had fully made 
known. 

Justin’s view of the Hebrew dispensation differs, 
therefore, in certain notable respects from those ex- 
Differences pressed in the New Testament. He does 
heaven Jus not say, as Paul did, that the law was a 
and that of schoolmaster to bring men to Christ, but 
Testament. yather a schoolmaster of the Jews to remind 
them of God and righteousness. The latter statement 
differs from the former in looking at the matter, not 
from the standpoint of a progressively revealed redemp- 
tion of which the Mosaic law was a positive factor, 
but from the standpoint of an always revealed duty with 
reference to which the Mosaic law was a reminder and 
a warning. Nor does he say that the Hebrew saints 
were saved through faith but through obedience, though 
he mentions Abraham’s faith. Nor does he, like the 


1 Dial. 44, Otto’s text; cf. Dial. 40-42, 111. 
2 Dial. 23. 


GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 101 


Epistle to the Hebrews, see in the ritual an harmonious 
system intended to typify the priestly work of Christ ; 
for his selection of types is arbitrary, and he does not 
bring into sufficient prominence the idea of Christ’s 
sacrifice. Yet to each of these New Testament ideas is 
Justin’s akin. Even the points of apparent difference 
are found in subordinate and disconnected places in his 
writings. With the Pauline rejection of Judaism he is, 
on the other hand, in perfect accord. Stephen’s speech ! 
arraigns the Jews for persistent rebellion very much as 
Justin does. With Paul, Justin declares the total abo- 
lition of Jewish ceremonies since the advent of Christ. 
With the Epistle to the Hebrews he teaches the iden- 
tity of Christian life with that of the patriarchs and 
saints of past time. Thus he is like and unlike the 
New Testament writers in his estimate of the Hebrew 
system. The cause of his differences we shall observe 
hereafter. 

But for our present purpose it is significant that the 
point which Justin failed to appreciate was the positive, 
educational side of Judaism. Of develop- της sature 
ment in revelation he had no idea; for he ἴο appreciate 

iene z the positive 
represents Christianity as having been taught worth of 
as completely though not as clearly or per- iter: 
suasively in the Old Testament as by Christ. That God 
through the ritual had been educating men for Chris- 
tianity, was a thought quite foreign to his mind. Juda- 
ism was to him a now abolished law, which had only 
been called out by the follies of the Jews; an adapta- 
tion to their sinfulness; an exclusively national law ; 
and a system, therefore, with which the Christian had 
nothing to do save as it might here and there typify 
Christ, or covertly reveal some truth which He had 


1 Acts vii. 


102 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


taught and which it was of interest for Christians to 
observe. 

It must already begin to appear that Justin was far 
from sympathizing with Judaism. His high valuation 
The Church Of the Old Testament did not in the least im- 
therefore ἃ ply such sympathy, and his failure to grasp 
ety. the positive value of the Mosaic ordinances 
indicates that he himself stood strongly on Gentile 
ground. We shall not be surprised, therefore, to find 
him representing the Christian Church as a distinc- 
tively Gentile society. Christ has been accepted, he 
says, among the Gentiles rather than among the Jews 
Prophecy, in fact, foretold the conversion of the Gen- 
tiles in such a way as to make it the characteristic mark 
of the Messianic kingdom,? and so did Christ Himself 
predict. Not only was Justin an uncircumcised man 
himself,* but he speaks of Christians generally as un- 
circumcised.® Christ is the priest of the uncircumcised, 
though He will receive those of the circumcision who 
approach Him. Some Jews, indeed, believe in Him,’ 
and others are daily leaving the paths of error and be- 
coming His disciples. Yet they are but a few, if com- 
pared with the body of their nation,,— a mere “remnant 
left by the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth unto the eter- 
nal salvation.” Ὁ. The Church was distinctively Gentile. 
So Trypho regarded 10,11 and so Justin describes it. 
“We, out of all nations ;” “Christ and His proselytes, 
namely, us Gentiles ;” 4*— such are his expressions. 
Christians in general do not observe the Mosaic ordi- 


1 Ap. i. 31, 40. 

2 Ap. i. 81, 49; Dial. 13, 28, 69, 109, 117, 122. 

8 Dial. 76. 4 Dial. 28. 5 Dial. 10, 15, 16, 29, 33. 
6 Dial. 33. 7 Dial. 120. 8 Dial. 39. 

9 Dial. 120. 10 Dial. 32. 11 Dial. 10, 64. 


12 Dial. 120. 18 Dial. 122. 


GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 103 


nances! The Gentiles are to receive the inheritance 
“along with the patriarchs and prophets and the just 
men who have descended from Jacob.” In the ass 
and the colt, which were brought to Jesus for his trium- 
phal entry, were symbolized the fact that “you of the 
synagogue, along with the Gentiles, would believe in 
Him ;”® but He is now the expectation of all nations, 
Jews must become proselytes to Him or to Christianity, 
and the distinctive mission of the Apostles was to the 
whole world® Finally, Justin says expressly that “the 
Christians from the Gentiles are both more numerous and 
truer than those from the Jews and the Samaritans.” ‘ 
Thus the Christianity which Justin knew was clearly 
not regarded by him as the development of Judaism. 
It was a Gentile religion. The great bulk of christianity 
its adherents. were Gentiles. With them, 23 eot 
indeed, Jews were welcome to unite, and of Judaism. 
many did so. But Christianity was the establishment 
of a universal faith. It was characteristically a non- 
national religion. Though Jesus and the prophets were 
Hebrews, yet the truth they taught was for all man- 
kind, and even in ancient times was known by some 
out of all nations; and the prophets predicted and 
Christ instituted a religion into which Jews must 
come on precisely the same basis as Gentiles. So far, 
indeed, was Justin beyond the idea, which the apostolic 
Church maintained, that the Gentiles were Fd απο 
fellow-heirs with the Jews, that he rather from Pauline 
felt called upon to admit that the Jews were ans 
fellow-heirs with the Gentiles. Again we must observe, 
that Justin did not in this matter reproduce the ideas 


1 Dial. 10-29. 2 Dial. 26. 3 Dial. 53. 
& Dial. 32. 5 Dial. 28. 6 Ap. i. 39. 
7 Ap. i. 53. πλείονὰς τε καὶ ἀληθεστέρους. 


104 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


of Paul, and that he rejected Judaism simply as an his- 
torical system of national worship, not because it was 
a temporary and finished term in the revelation of the 
true religion. He distinguished, also, far more clearly 
than Paul had done, between the moral and ritual ele- 
ments in the Mosaic laws. The substance of Paul’s 
rejection of Judaism he retained. The essential uni- 
versality of the Gospel he assumed. But the percep- 
tion of the divine reason for both the enactment and 
abolition of Judaism was obscured to him, because the 
whole idea of a progressive revelation was wanting in 
Justin. He was not even enough of a Jew to enter 
into Paul’s thought of the purpose subserved by that 
which had been done away. 

This brings us to the formal judgment which Justin 
passes upon Jewish Christians! Trypho asks if a 
ee man who believes in and obeys Christ and 
formal judg- yet observes the Mosaic ordinances can be 


ment upon Ξ 4 
Jewish saved, —a question which itself shows how 


Σὰ completely Justin’s Christianity appeared to 
the Jew as Gentile faith. Justin replies that in his 
opinion such an one can be saved, provided that he does 
not strive to persuade Gentile Christians to do the same, 
nor teach such observances to be necessary to salvation. 
He admits, however, that some will not have any inter- 
course with those who observe the law, but states that 
he thinks differently. “For,’ he adds, “if some, be- 
cause of the weakness of their mind, besides hoping 
upon this Christ and keeping the eternal and natural 
precepts of righteousness and piety, wish also to keep 
as much as they now can of the Mosaic laws, which we 
think were ordered on account of the hardness of the 
people’s hearts, and choose to live with the Christians 


1 Dial. 47. 


GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 105 


and the faithful; as I said before, not persuading them 
to be either circumcised like themselves, or to sabbatize, 
or to observe other such rites, — I hold that it is proper 
to join ourselves to such, and to share all things with 
them, as with kinsmen and brethren.” Moreover, he is 
even willing to admit that such proselytes as the Jewish 
Christians may make from the Gentiles will probably 1 
be saved. At the same time he would meet any Jew- 
ish-Christian refusal to fellowship with Gentiles by a 
like refusal to fellowship with such Jewish Christians, 
and declares that those who go over to Judaism itself 
can certainly not be saved, any more than the Jews 
themselves who persecute the Christians. 

From this passage it is evident that there were dif- 
- ferences of opinion in the Christian community, even to 
the degree of causing the existence of sects. _ . 

The New Testament, however, testifies to the eae in 
existence of such differences in the apostolic eee Cok 
age itself, though not among the Apostles; and we are 
only interested to learn whether Justin’s description 
agrees best with the idea that the Church had been rad- 
ically divided into opposing parties, which had recently 
combined or were then combining, or with the idea that 
these sects only represent imperfect or extravagant 
views, lingering prejudices, and human speculations, — 
offshoots of Christianity, which were never held by the 
great body of believers. 

On the one hand, then, Justin speaks of Jewish 
Christians who continued to observe the Mosaic law. 
He evidently implies, also, that of these there be earn 
were two classes,— those who merely held ee ; 
to “the law” themselves, and fellowshipped 


1 ἴσως; generally translated, “fortasse.” Otto inclines to 
“sine dubio.” 


106. JUSTIN MARTYR. 


with Gentile Christians; and those who considered “the 
law” binding upon all, and both refused to fellowship 
with non-observers of it and strove to proselyte them. 
Theirdee Justin, it should be noted, describes both 
mands, classes as wishing to observe “as many things 
as they now can of the Mosaic ordinances.”! They had 
only so far modified the observance of the ritual as their 
expulsion from Jerusalem had rendered necessary. He 
distinctly states that they still practised circumcision, 
and that this was demanded of the Gentiles by those 
Jewish Christians who sought to proselyte them; so 
that they had not, as Baur alleges conceded this point 
to the Pauline Christians. It is to be observed, also, 
that he does not say that the Jewish Christians differed 
in general from the doctrines of the orthodox church. 
That he knew of Ebionites will appear in a moment, 
and doubtless they were of the proselyting and exclu- 
sive class of Jewish Christians to which he refers in 
the passage before us. But he also testifies to Jewish 
Christians who lived in entire harmony with Gentile 
believers, while preserving their national customs. The 
Jewish type of Christianity, therefore, was not, except 
in its extreme form, Ebionitic; nor is there any reason 
to suppose it had ever been so. If there had been 
a change in the theology of the Jewish Christians, 
whereby they had come into closer union with the 
Gentile Christians, it is fair to suppose that Justin 
would have mentioned in some way such doctrinal 
orthodoxy, as one of the conditions of his recognizing 
the Christianity of such Jews. The fact that he only 
mentions the matter of the ritual certainly implies that 


1 πὰ ca δύνανται vov ex τῶν Μιούστως: 
2 The Christianity of the First Three Centuries, vol. i. pp. 106, 
etc. 


GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 107 


it alone was the question between the two parties. 
But it is also to be noted that while Justin heir few- 
describes the existence of such Jewish Chris- ™** 
tians, we have already found him speaking of them as 
comparatively few. In some cases, indeed, they were 
active proselyters. But they were a small body in com- 
parison with the Christian community as a whole; and 
the very indifference of Justin to their maintenance of 
their traditional usages shows of itself how small their 
number really was. 

On the other hand, there were some in the Christian 
community who were so opposed to any form of Ju- 
daism as to deny salvation to, and refuse he extreme 
to hold intercourse with, observers of “the oPRonch’s 
law.” Perhaps by these Justin meant the Christianity. 
Marcionites. He does not call them Christians, though 
they evidently called themselves by that name; yet 
neither does he so violently repudiate them as he 
elsewhere does Marcion and his followers! But al- 
lowing that some whom Justin would not have con- 
sidered heretical were thus violently anti-Jewish, he 
himself in this passage only expresses his disagreement 
with them on the question of the salvability and Chris- 
tian character of the Jewish Christians; he does not 
dissent from their opposition to Jewish Chris- justin’s 
tianity itself. His own position, here as mee 
elsewhere, is distinctly anti-Jewish; but he Position. 
is lenient in his judgment of those who differ with him. 
He regards Jewish Christianity as weak-mindedness. 
He is absolutely opposed to the observance by Chris- 
tians of the Mosaic ordinances. But he is willing to 
make allowance for the power of custom and for hon- 


1 Yet see Dial. 48, where he repudiates the Ebionites as gently, 
though he considers their doctrines as human teachings. 


108 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


est differences of opinion, and therefore believes that 
Christian Jews, though they continue their national 
usages, should not be excluded from the communion 
of the Church. To be a disciple of Christ was the say- 
ing fact. Questions of ceremonies were of secondary 
importance. 

It would seem perfectly idle, then, to maintain, as 
the Tiibingen critics did, that Justin had any sympa- 
Noite thy with Jewish Christianity, or represents 
phy, ee, a doubtful position between the two sides, 
ae 2 Gentile and Jewish Christianity stood, in his 

" ylew, distinct from each other; and while he 
covered the latter with the mantle of his charity, he 
himself occupied no half-way position. It is true that 
he went further in his charity than Paul had found it 
possible to do, in admitting the salvation of even those 
Gentiles who went over to the observance of Jewish 
rites. But the salvation of individuals is one thing, 
and the propriety of their opinions and conduct is an- 
other. When, moreover, Paul was first establishing the 
freedom of the Gospel against the previous opinion 
that Gentiles had to become Jews in order to be Chris- 
tians, he might well insist that if they were circum- 
cised, Christ would profit them nothing, But if, a 
century later, the freedom of Gentiles had long been 
established, there was less need to judge hardly of indi- 
vidual perverts to Jewish Christianity. Justin’s charity 
may have in this instance gone too far; but the change 
of circumstances from the apostolic age was such that 
he cannot, on account of his charity, be charged with 
sympathy with an anti-Pauline type of faith. He is 
firm in expressing his conviction of the error and 
weakness of Jewish Christianity, and his very charity 
is again a proof that this type of religion was too 


GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 109 


inconsiderable a power in the Church to be seriously 
feared. 

Was Justin, then, in all this, a fair representative of 
the majority of Christians? That he was disposed to 
take an ultra-liberal view of even the Ebion- ,,.. pe 
ites, has been inferred from two passages in that of the 
his writings. In the Dialogue! he argues ma Τὰ 
that even if he should not succeed in proving the pre- 
existence of Christ, the proof of his Messiahship would 
yet hold good, and adds that “there are some of our 
race who confess Him to be Christ, but hold Him to be 
aman born of men;” and of these, who were mani- 
festly Ebionites,? he remarks, “ with whom I do not 
agree.” So, in the larger Apology,’ he says that “the 
Son of God, called Jesus, even if only a man by ordi- 
nary generation, yet on account of His wisdom is worthy 
to be called the Son of God.” But it is fair to explain 
these expressions as due to Justin’s desire to attain the 
main object of his argument. Fully as he believed in 
the pre-existent divinity of Christ, he would at least 
have both pagan and Jew confess His wisdom and Mes- 
siahship, if he could persuade them to admit no more. 
If he referred to Ebionites as of “ our race,” — that is, as 
Christians, —he did but speak according to the name 
by which they were known to the world; but he rejects 
their doctrine most strenuously, declaring that not only 
did he not agree with it, but that most of those who 
thought as he did — that is, who belonged to the Chris- 
tian Church — would reject it likewise, since they had 
been commanded by Christ to put no faith in human 


1 Dial. 48. 

2? So it is generally assumed. For the phrase “our race,” some 
editors substitute “your race,” but needlessly. Cf. Otto’s note. 

5. Ap. i. 22. 


᾽ 


110 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


doctrines, but only in those taught by the prophets and 
Himself. These passages therefore indicate, again, no 
leaning toward Jewish Christianity of any type, but 
rather show that Justin and the Church stood together 
in opposition to both Judaizing ceremonies and Ebionite 
error. And the evidence is strong that Justin did rep- 
resent the majority of Christians in his day. He spe- 
cifically claimed to do so, and in most explicit terms 
separates the heretics, as new and less numerous, from 
the true and apostolic Church. If so, then we may 
affirm from him that the great body of Christians in the 
middle of the second century considered Jewish Chris- 
tianity as a vanishing type of the faith, to be charitably 
regarded, indeed, but yet distinctly inferior to the full 
truth taught by Christ and His Apostles. 

We conclude, then, that so far as the formal relations 
of these two types of Christianity were concerned, there 
Bearing at is no reason to infer from Justin that they 
gis evidende had recently combined. Both still main- 
Tiibingen tained their existence. But Jewish Chris- 
oe tianity was dying fast. The Jewish war had 
for the second time placed the seal of Providence upon 
the abrogation of Hebrew rites, and given the final 
blow to Jewish national influence. Gentile Christian- 
ity was not only established, but was assumed by the 
vast majority of believers to be the natural and apos- 
tolic type. Justin and the Church stood positively and 
uncompromisingly on Gentile ground, and the bitter dis- 
pute which had raged between Paul and the Judaizers 
had long since lost its edge, for the very reason that 
Gentile Christianity had become so overwhelmingly 
dominant that the old issues were dead. Such a result, 


1 Cf. Dial. 35, 80, ete. 2 Cf. Lect. VI. 
8 Ap. i. 81, 47. 


GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 111 


be it observed, is just that which we would expect to 
find, if the course of events in the preceding age had 
been that which is related in the New Testament. 


But, it will be said, was there not a silent but actual 
fusion of Gentile and Jewish Christianity, in spite of 
their apparently continued independence? ad there 
Justin, among others, has been appealed to been an um 
as evidence that Judaism had imposed cer- fusion? 
tain of its views, and notably its prejudice against Paul, 
upon the Gentile believers, while it had at the same 
time accepted in turn from them the Pauline idea of 
the universality of the Gospel. While thus the re- 
sults of Paul’s missionary work remained, his doctrinal 
spirit, it is said, was lost in the fusion of his follow- 
ers with those of the original Apostles. A reaction 
took place, it is alleged, of Gentile Christianity toward 
Jewish views. The mere fact of such a reaction may 
be held without implying doubt of the authenticity 
of the New Testament books. It may, however, be 
held with the purpose of explaining the alleged union 
of the originally divided Christian communities. It is 
important, therefore, to examine that part of Justin’s 
testimony which has been adduced to show the pres- 
ence in him of an anti-Pauline or Judaizing spirit, 
and to inquire whether he does indicate that such a 
spirit was really at work in the Catholic Church of 
his day. 

1. Appeal has been made to the fact that Justin 
strongly repudiates the eating of meat which had been 
offered in sacrifice to idols, and evidently be- The abhor- 
lieves that no true Christian would be guilty "nce of 


ΐ meat offered 
of such an offence This has been con-. t? idols. 


1 Dial. 34, 35. 


112 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


trasted with Paul’s doctrine of the inherent indifference 
of such an act,! and it has hence been inferred that the 
adoption in the second century of the absolute unlaw- 
fulness of eating meat which had been offered to idols 
proves that Jewish Christianity had so far imposed its 
shackles upon the freedom which Paul had claimed for 
the Gentiles. 

It should be observed, also, that this question is 
mingled with that of the authenticity of the Acts of 
Ε : the Apostles. Holtzmann,? for example, as- 

onnection ἃ ΠΥΡῸΣ ἣ 

of this with suming that Gal. ii. is inconsistent with the 
the authen- ; - 5 = 
ticity of the account of the apostolic council given in 
ray Acts xv., assigns the latter, with its “de- 
cree” of abstinence from meats offered to idols and 
from blood and from things strangled and from for- 
nication, to the second century, and claims that it 
represents the fusion of Pauline and Jewish-Christian 
views to which the Church had gradually come. He 
admits, indeed, that Paul himself commended, under 
certain circumstances, abstinence from idol-meat,? but 
sees in Rev. i. 14, 15, 20, 24, where certain mem- 
bers of Asiatic churches are reproved for eating such 
meat and for fornication, the first step in the ex- 
pression by Jewish Christians of the conditions on 
which they would recognize Gentile Christians. He 
then points to the prohibition in the pseudo-Clemen- 
tines,* not only of eating idol-meat, but also of the use 
of things strangled, and blood, and to prohibitions of 
impurity scattered through the same books; refers to 
the rebuke administered in the so-called Epistle of Bar- 


1 1 Cor. viii. 4-6; x. 23-26; Rom. xiv. 1-6. 

2 Cf. Zeitschr. fiir wissensch. Theol., 1883, pp. 159, ete. 
8 1 Cor. viii. 7-13; x. 28; Rom. xiv. 14, 15. 

* Hom. vii. 8; Recog. iv. 36. 


GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 113 


nabas! against those who “rush forward as if proselytes 
to the Jewish law;” claims incorrectly, as we have 
seen,2 that according to Justin the milder Jewish-Chris- 
tian party demanded of Gentiles these conditions, while 
the extreme party demanded the observance of the 
whole law; and finally points to the fact, admitted by 
all, that in the second century abstinence from idol- 
meat was characteristic of Christians generally.2 He 
accounts for these facts by the “legalistic movement” 
which in the post-apostolic age took possession of all 
Christendom, and maintains that by it a modus vivendi 
was gradually established between Pauline and Jewish 
Christians. The author of the Acts, living not long 
before Justin, and therefore when this state of things 
had come about, and supposing that what all believed 
to be Christian duty must have had apostolic authority, 
attributed the famous “decree” to the apostolic council. 
According to Holtzmann,* this was done without any 
conscious intention in the author of the Acts to mis- 
represent facts, but simply through his ignorant assump- 
tion of the prevalent ideas of his day,—a view in 
which Holtzmann differs from the earlier theory of 
Baur, Zeller, and others that Acts was a deliberate 
attempt to reconcile the contending parties by re- 


1 Chapter iii., Lat. vers. 

2 Justin (see above) does not represent any such difference in 
the demands of the mild and extreme Jewish parties. The real 
difference was that the milder party claimed the right to observe 
the law themselves; the extremists insisted on its observance by 
Gentiles. 

3 He refers to Eus. H. E. v. 1, Just. Dial. 35, Orig. contra Cels. 
viii. 30, and claims that Judaism, as well as Jewish Christianity, 
laid stress on these conditions of proselytism rather than on the 
observance of the whole law. 

* And Pfleiderer (Paulinism, ii. 228, etc.). 

8 


114 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


writing the history of the apostolic age so as to give 
equal honor to Peter and Paul? 

Now, we are here concerned with these criticisms of 
the Acts? only so far as they show the significance of 
Justin’s testimony. All admit that the Acts and Justin 
stand practically on the same ground in this matter. 
The fact that they do is insisted upon by the “ad- 
vanced” critics, in order to show that the narrative of 
the Acts represents the ideas and usages not of the first 
but of the second century. To prove the authenticity 
and historical credibility of the Acts would be beyond 
our purpose. Suffice it to say that traces of the book 
may be found in the Epistles of Polycarp? and of Igna- 
tius,t and even in that of Clement of Rome® toward 
the close of the first century. Nor can we here pause 
to disprove, as has been often done, the fundamental 
dictum of rationalistic criticism, that Gal ii. is in- 
consistent with Acts xv. It is sufficient for us to 
Fastin’s observe that Justin, unlike the Acts, clearly 
abhormnce shows that the stress laid in his day on ab- 
ane ts net stinence from idol-meats was due to other 
ish influ- causes than an inclination to Judaism. He 
aeons expressly affirms that it was at least partly 
because of his abhorrence of the Gnostics, some of whom ® 
prided themselves on doing this very thing. “They cause 
us,” he says,’ “who are disciples of the true and pure 
doctrine of Jesus Christ, to be more faithful and stead- 
fast in the hope announced by Him.” Nor were these 
the Marcionites, who claimed to be special followers of 

1 Holtzmann admits also (p. 164) that the Judaizing source 
which the author of the Acts used may have already worked up 
the account of the council. 

2 Cf. Weiss’s Einleitung, pp. 560, ete. 8 Ad Phil. 1. 

+ Smyr. 3, and, perhaps, Mag. 5. 6. Ad Cor. ce. 2, 13. 

6 Tren. adv. Her. i. 6. 3. 7 Dial. 35. 


GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 115 


Paul, for they did not eat meat at all! The action, 
therefore, of the Christians of the second century would 
seem in this matter to have been due to their abhor- 
rence of the moral laxity and general worldliness into 
which heresy often tended, rather than to any reaction 
from Paulinism to Jewish Christianity. Connected with 
this was the necessity, as soon as Christianity became a 
public matter, of making a firm confession of the faith. ° 
No way of doing this was so often thrust upon them 
by their persecutors as the refusing to unite in sacrifice 
to the gods; and Paul himself recognized? the duty un- 
der such circumstances of refusing to eat meat which 
had been offered to idols, since the receiving of it would 
be considered homage to the false god. It is quite un- 
necessary, therefore, to see in this prevalent abstinence 
an anti-Pauline, Judaizing feeling, or to explain it as 
part of a modus vivendi established between Gentile 
and Jewish believers. The circumstances of the time 
led the Christian conscience thus to judge of its duty. 
That by so doing a possible cause of offence to Jewish 
Christians was removed, is of course obvious; but that 
the cause of the abstinence lay in the requirements of 
Jewish Christianity as such, or in the imposition upon 
the church of a ritualizing and confessedly anti-Pauline 
doctrine, is a view to which Justin, both by his ex- 
planation of the real cause of the abstinence and by 
his antipathy to Jewish ceremonialism, stands utterly 
opposed.3 


1 Justin (Dial. 35) includes the Marcionites (Μαρκιανοὶ, see 
Otto’s note) and Saturnilians with the Basilideans and Valentini- 
ans, not as being eaters of idol-meat, but as being blasphemers of 
the Maker of all things. 

2 1 Cor. x. 28. So Orig. contra Cels. viii. 31, gives this as the 
admitted reason why Christians abstained from idol-meat. 

8 The Clementines do not testify to the opinion of Catholic 


116 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


2. But we are told that Justin does not mention Paul ; 
nay, that he manifestly avoids mentioning him, and 
pees ireven implicitly repudiates him as an Apostle. 
not mention Certainly, if this be so, there would be plau- 
Bae sibility in the rationalistic theory of the 
original mutual hostility of the Apostles and division 
of the Church. 

What, then, are in this case the facts? That Justin 
anaes does not mention Paul, is true; but had he 
reasonto| any reason to mention him, and does his 
mentionhim silence imply hostility to the Apostle ? 

Anticipating what will more fully appear later,! we 
may say that Justin speaks of the Apostles in general 
His mention 88 the messengers sent by Christ to publish 
fle mere His Gospel to the world, as taught by Him 
eral. and endowed with power from on high, and 
as having been sent to all nations to be the founders of 
the Church. They are represented as the authoritative 
publishers of Christ’s doctrine, and the sources from 
which comes the knowledge of His life and teaching.” 
Of any of them, however, Justin makes mention by 
name in only three instances, all of which are in the 
Dialogue. Having affirmed his belief in a visible reign 
of Christ in Jerusalem, he quotes, first, Isa. xv. 17-25, 


Christianity, but of the Ebionite sect. They were a veritable 
“ Tendenzschrift ;” and the difference between their representa- 
tion of apostolic history and that of the Acts is as great in tone 
and spirit as in point of fact. The abstinence from things stran- 
gled and from blood, to which, however, Origen and Eusebius (in 
his report of the letter from Lyons and Vienne) testify, may be 
explained both by the “decree” of Acts and by the Christians’ 
sensitive abhorrence of brutality. Origen says blood was the food 
of demons. 

1 Lect. V. 

2 Cf. Ap. i. 31, 33, 39, 40, 42, 45, 49, 50, 61, 66, 67; Dial. 42, 
76, 81, 100, 106, 109, 110, 114, 118, 119. 


GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 117 


and briefly comments on the passage, alluding also to 
Ps. xe. 4, and then adds:! “ And further there was a cer- 
tain man with us, whose name was John, one of the 
Apostles of Christ, who prophesied by a revelation that 
was made to him that those who believed in our Christ 
would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem.” Again,? 
in the course of an argument to show why Christ is 
called both Son of Man and Son of God, Justin men- 
tions that He “called one of His disciples — previously 
known by the name of Simon — Peter; since he recog- 
nized Him to be Christ the Son of God by the revelation 
of the Father.” And again? he points to the change 
of Simon’s name to Peter and of those of the sons of 
Zebedee to Boanerges as an indication that Christ was 
the same who had changed Jacob’s name to Israel and 
Oshea’s to Joshua. It is evident that in the last two 
cases the mention of apostolic names was quite inciden- 
tal. The mention of John as the author of the Apoca- 
lypse is more formal ; yet even then the citation from 
the Apostle is subordinate to that from Isaiah, and it is 
less as an apostle than as a prophet that mention is made 
of him at all. In fact, the purpose of Justin’s writings 
called for no special mention of particular Apostles. He 
was not narrating Christian history. He was arguing 
for Christianity on ground which he supposed his pa- 
gan readers and Jewish hearers would admit. It would 
have been useless for him to have quoted to them the 
apostolic epistles or any other Christian authorities, save 
so far as these were historical witnesses to the facts and 
teaching of Jesus. 

But it is further said that Justin specifically calls the 
Apostles twelve, and attributes to them alla ἐν της 
common mission to all nations. Was not twelve.” 


1 Dial. 81. 2 Dial. 100. 3 Dial. 106. 


118 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


this an intentional omission of Paul and a transfer- 
ence of his work to the original Apostles? Is not this 
an indication that Paul had fallen into disrepute even 
among Gentile Christians, at least among those of them 
who were in the Catholic Church? Is not Justin’s 
language comparable with the ominous silence of the 
pseudo-Clementines concerning the same Apostle? It 
should be remembered, however, that Justin is admitted 
to have freely used the Epistles of Paul, though without 
Usedthe fully reproducing the Apostle’s thought! It 
Eeietles should be remembered also that he frequently 
and Luke. yefers, as we shall see,? to “the memoirs of 
the Apostles,’ and states® that these were written by 
Christ’s “ Apostles and those who followed them.” This 
expression obviously means that some of the “ memoirs” 
were written by Apostles, and others by their companions. 
Now, it is certain that Luke’s Gospel was included in 
these “memoirs ;” indeed, Justin refers to that Gospel 
in the very passage in which the above expression 
occurs. But that Gospel was never referred in all an- 
tiquity to an Apostle, and the inference is plain that 
it was considered by Justin apostolic because of the 
author’s known connection with Paul. In fact, Justin’s 
acceptance of Luke, especially when we remember that 
Marcion, whom Justin opposed, claimed his amended 
Luke as the original Pauline Gospel, is of itself suffi- 
cient proof of Justin’s recognition of Paul’s apostleship. 
Finally, it should be remembered, again, that Justin 
quotes none of the New Testament Epistles at all, though 
his acquaintance with most of them can be clearly 

1 Cf. Otto’s Justini Opera, ii. index iii.; and Thoma’s exhaus- 
tive articles on “Justins literarisches Verhiiltniss zu Paulus und 
zum Johannes-Evangelium,” Zeitschr. fiir wissensch. Theol., 1875, 


pp: 383, 490, 
-2 Leet. V. 3 Dial. 103. 


GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 119 


shown. His failure, therefore, to cite from Paul is as 
consistent with his habit as, in view of the character 
of his readers, it was natural. His silence about the 
Apostle is quite a different phenomenon from that of 
the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, since 
these pretend to relate the movements and teaching of 
the principal characters of apostolic history. 

When, then, we turn to the passages in which Justin 
speaks of twelve Apostles, we find them to be only two 
out of all the many references to the Apostles which oc- 
cur in his writings. In the one? he quotes, as an exam- 
ple of the spirit of prophecy speaking in His own name, 
Isa. 11. ὃ, “For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and 
the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” He then adds: 
“ And that it did so come to pass we can convince you. 
For from Jerusalem there went out into the world men, 
twelve in number, and these illiterate and of no ability 
in speaking; but by the power of God they proclaimed 
to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to 
teach to all the word of God.’ In the other, he is 
showing how the Mosaic ordinances prefigured Christ 
and Christianity, and sees in the twelve bells, which he 
says 5 were hung to the high-priest’s robe, a symbol of 
the twelve Apostles. It seems scarcely credible that 
these two instances, when Justin often speaks of the 
Apostles without any specification of number, should be 
thought to prove an intentional omission of Paul. Nor 
does the fact that he speaks of the Apostles as sent to 
all nations prove that he had transferred to the original 


1 Ap. i. 39. 2 Dial. 42. 

8 He probably confounded these with the twelve precious 
stones in the priestly robe of Aaron. Cf. Otto’s note referring 
to Tert. adv. Mare. iv. 13, where that Father uses the same stones 
as symbols of the Apostles. 


120 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


twelve the Gentile work of Paul. It only shows that 
open when Justin wrote, there was no consciousness 
the Apostles of the alleged peculiarly Jewish work of the 
oan iis other Apostles. The “memoirs” themselves 
told him that the mission of the Apostles was to all 
nations. The established Gentile character of the Chris- 
tian community rightly confirmed him in regarding this 
as the apostolic mission. It is almost trifling to assert 
that Justin’s occasional use of the number twelve, which 
to this day we use without meaning to deny the apostle- 
ship of Paul, can be even imagined to contain a slur on 
the great champion of Gentile Christianity. 

3. It remains for me to mention two features of Jus- 
tin’s theology which have been supposed to indicate the 
influence of later Judaism. 

a. The first is his strong Chiliasm. He believed in 
the triumphant establishment by Christ at the second 
advent of His kingdom in Jerusalem,! and 
the settlement of the Church in the Holy 
Land during a thousand years, after which would follow 
the general resurrection and judgment and the eternal 
kingdom.? Chiliasm has been supposed to have passed 
over into Christianity from Judaism, and to indicate in 
its advocates Jewish-Christian sympathies. 

Upon this point, however, so far as our present inves- 
tigation is concerned, we need call attention to but the 
following facts : — 

(1) Chiliasm was widely diffused in the second 
century among Christians of both Gentile and Jewish 
affinities. Justin states? that while he and w,,,, 
many others held this view, “many of those diffused. 
Christians who are of the pure and pious opinion do not 


Chiliasm. 


1 Dial. 32, 35, 40, 51, 80, 81, 110, 113, 121, 138, 139. 
2 Dial. 81, 117, ete. 8 Dial. 81. 


GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 121 


admit it.” We find Chiliasm not only in the “ Teaching 
of the Apostles ”} and in Papias,? but also in Barnabas,® 
as well as later in Ivenzeus* and Tertullian.® So widely 
scattered a belief cannot therefore be considered evi- 
dence of Jewish tendencies. 

(2) Justin held Chiliasm in a strong anti-Judaic form. 
He expected no conversion of the Jews as a nation,® but 
believed that the Christian Church as such 

3 : : Held by Jus- 
would inherit the promised land.’ Nor would tin in ananti- 
Jewish sacrifices ever be restored. Chiliasm 7°" "™ 
indeed, as Dorner says,? was anti-Jewish in so far as 
the millennium was conceived of as only an interme- 
diate state between the present age of suffering and 
the eternal age of glory which lay still beyond. This is 
very noticeable in Justin. In the Apology he says noth- 
ing of the millennium, and represents the rewards of 
the righteous as in the highest degree spiritual;?? and 
while in the Dialogue he expresses his belief in a lit- 
eral millennium, he also looks forward to the period 
after the final judgment as the ultimate object of Chris- 
tian hope." While, therefore, Chiliasm had certainly 
affinities with Judaism, its presence among Gentile 
Christians is no indication of a compromise with Jew- 
ish Christians on the points which had distinguished 


1 ¢. 16. 2 Tren. adv. Heer. v. 32. 
δι; πὶ 4 Adv. Heer. v. 30-36. 
5 Adv. Mare. iii. 24. 6 Dial. 32. 

7 Dial. 113, 139. 8 Dial. 118. 


9. History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, i. 408, etc., 
Eng. trans. 

10 Cf. Ap. i. 10, 13, 21,52. So see his description of the “heavy- 
enly kingdom” which Christians expect; Ap. i. 11. Aubé (Saint 
Justin, pp. 195-199) goes so far as to assert that Justin’s idea of 
the future reward was even negative and philosophical ; but he 
neglects the testimony of the Dialogue. 

11 Dial. 105, 116, 117. 


22 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


them from one another. We may, with Dorner, regard 
Chiliasm as an early and crude expression of the belief 
that Christianity was to conquer the world, or we may 
infer that it was the original belief of all apostolic 
Christians. We must certainly recognize that Chiliasm 
was quite in harmony with that combined literal and 
mystical method of interpreting Scripture, of which we 
Chiliasm no Have given examples from Justin.? But we 
eS cannot infer that its presence in him and 
thies. other Gentile Christians was a symptom of 
sympathy with a Judaizing type of Christianity. 

b. The other feature of Justin’s theology which has 
been supposed to indicate a Judaizing tendency is his 
Christian  Tepresentation of Christianity as the “new 
legalism. = Jaw.” He declares it to be the new law and 
covenant which the prophets had predicted and by 
which the Mosaic had been abolished? Christ is a law- 
civer,* or else is himself the new law® and the new 
covenant. Justin also often speaks of the way of sal- 
vation in a manner which seems to show a legalizing, 
unevangelical conception. Christians receive indeed in 
baptism forgiveness of past sins,’ but pray that, having 
learned the truth, they may by their works be found 
keepers of the commandments, and so be saved with an 
everlasting salvation. Christ will clothe us with pre- 
pared garments, if we do His commandments.’ So, like- 
wise, salvation is represented almost entirely as future. 
They who can prove to God by their works that they 


1 Cf. above. 
2 Cf. especially Dial. 81, where Justin fancifully refers Isa. 
Ixv. to the millennium. 


8 Dial. 11, 24, 67, 110, 122. 4 Dial. 11, 12, 14, 18. 
§ Dial. 11, 43. 6 Dial.51;'118, 422: 
7 Ap. i. 61; ef. Dial. 54. Ὁ τς τὸ bos 


9. Dial. 116. 


GENTILE AND JEWISH ‘CHRISTIANITY. 123 


followed Him will obtain the reward! Hence obedience 
is predominantly made the condition of salvation. In 
pagan times Socrates and others were saved through 
their obedience to reason.2, In Hebrew times men were 
saved, if they observed the moral as well as the ritual 
law.2 Now, in Christian times “as many as are per- 
suaded that the things taught by us are true, and under- 
take to be able to live accordingly, are regenerated in 
baptism,’ and afterwards strive to live sinless lives.® 
Repentance, baptism, belief in the revelation of God 
through Christ, and obedience to Christ’s law are the 
commonly named conditions of salvation.6 On the 
ground of these and similar expressions Justin is said 
to have taught a purely legal way of salvation, and thus 
to have been far from sharing the Pauline doctrine of 
salvation through faith. And it must be admitted that 
this mode of speaking may be fairly said to be charac- 
teristic of Justin.’ We miss in his writings the clear 
expression of the Pauline doctrine of immediate justifi- 
cation and a full sense of faith as the appropriation of 
a finished redemption. Yet, on the other hand, we think 
it possible to collect from Justin other phrases and ideas 
which imply the evangelical view of the way of salva- 
tion. He speaks of it as originating in God’s goodness, 
whereby God was led to send His Son to earth.8 While 
emphasizing human liberty, he speaks of Christian life 
as in some manner based on divine grace to individuals.® 


1 Ap.i. 8. So cf. 10, 14, 42, 48, 65. 


2 Ap. i. 5, 10, 46. 8 Dial. 11-26, 45. 

4 Ap. i. 61. 5 Dial. 44. 

6 Cf. Dial. 95. “If you repent of your sins and recognize 
Him to be Christ and observe His commandments, then .. . re- 


mission of sins will be yours.” 
7 Cf. Lect. IV., where this whole subject is further discussed. 
8 Ap. i. 10. 9 Dial. 30, 32, 55, 119, 121. 


124 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


More, also, is made of faith and of Christ’s blood than 
Justin’s previous expressions would lead us to expect, or 
than all of his critics have given him credit for. Isaiah, 
he says, sends us to that saving bath which is for those 
who repent and are purified, not by the blood of goats 
and of sheep, but by faith through the blood of Christ. 
Abraham was justified and blessed on account of his 
faith.2 The Gentiles who have believed on Christ and 
repented, shall receive the inheritance. The paschal 
lamb was a type of Christ, “with whose blood they who 
believe in Him, in proportion to their faith in Him, 
anoint their houses, i. e. themselves.” 4 “ All who repent 
can obtain mercy from God, even as the Scripture fore- 
tells, ‘Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth 
not sin.’”® “The goodness of God holds him who re- 
pents of his sins, as He reveals through Ezekiel, as 
righteous and free from sin.”® While, therefore, Justin 
undoubtedly laid stress on the idea of Christ as a teacher, 
on faith as the acceptance of truth, and Christian life as 
obedience, there was evidently another conception of 

salvation imbedded in his language and thought. 
The present question, however, is, To what was his 
legalistic tendency due? A little earlier we read, in the 
᾿ς pseudo-Epistle of Barnabas,’ of “the new law 

Its growth in : Ξ 5 5 
the [Be ΡΟΣ. of our Lord J esus Christ, which is without 
the yoke of necessity.” A little later than 
Justin, Athenagoras wrote: “We have a law which 
makes the measure of righteousness to be dealing with 
our neighbors as ourselves.”® The Homily which goes 


1 Dial. 13. πίστει. 2 Dial. 23 (διὰ τὴν πίστιν) and 119. 
8 Dial. 26. 

4 Dial. 40. κατὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς εὶς αὐτὸν πίστεως. 

5 Dial. 141. 6 Dial. 47. 


7¢.2. 8 Supplic. 32. 


GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 125 


by the name of the Second Epistle of Clement of Rome 
lays great stress on obedience and good works;! while 
Irenzeus? and Tertullian? speak of the new covenant 
or new law. These were Gentile Christians. Was the 
stress thus laid on Christian duty and the 
employment of apparently legalistic phrase- 
ology due to a reaction of Gentile Christianity toward 
Jewish Christianity, or are we to seek the explanation 
in other causes? Our full reply to this question must 
be deferred until with Justin’s aid we have studied the 
influence of paganism on Christianity. But for the pres- 
ent we may observe that, united as this legal- ἜΝ 

ism was with a thorough repudiation of Jewish davily dneto 
rites, it is at least unnecessary to see in it a Ὁ 
sign of the merging of Gentile and Jewish Christianity. 
It should be remembered that Paul himself spoke of “ the 
law of Christ” ὁ and of “ the law of the Spirit,” ὅ of “ wait- 
ing by faith for the hope of righteousness,” ® and of the 
imperative necessity of good works.’ It is quite con- 
ceivable that in the second age of Christianity practical 
problems of duty would, in the face of heathenism and 
persecution, cause the moral side of the Gospel and the 
necessity of obedience to the Gospel’s requirements to 
be emphasized. It is quite conceivable, also, that Gentile 
Christianity should not have been able to preserve the 
strictly evangelical ideas of Paul against the influence 
of philosophy and the natural tendency of the human 
mind. It is quite possible that the use of the Old Tes- 
tament as a book of Christian doctrine, without a just 


Its cause. 


1 ec, 2, 4, 11, ete. 

2 Adv. Her. iii. 10. 5; iv. 9.2; 34.11; ete. 

3 De Prescr. 13; Adv. Jud. 3, 6, 9. 

4 Gal. vi. 2. 5 Rom. viii. 2. 
ΘΕΆ Vig: 7 Gal. v. 19-25, ete. 


126 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


sense of the progress of revelation, may have contributed 
to a revival of the forms of thought which the old 
dispensation, if superficially understood, was likely to 
create. But when the authors who represent this ten- 
dency vigorously repudiate Judaism, show themselves 
unable even to appreciate the worth of the Hebrew sys- 
tem, consider Christianity an essentially Gentile insti- 
tution, and speak of Jewish Christians as weak-minded 
believers, it may be true that they had themselves lost 
the clear apprehension of immediate salvation by faith 
alone, and had thus revived a spirit similar to that of 
the later Jews; but it is surely not to be inferred that 
this was a sign of the blending of the body of Gentile 
Christians with the body of Jewish Christians to which 
they had formerly been avowedly hostile. We rather 
infer from the testimony of Justin that Jew- 
Summary οὗ Suen hee: - 
Justin’s tes- ish Christianity had become a comparatively 
a small fraction of the Church; that it had, 
with the exception of the Ebionites, long since been 
reconciled to the claims of Gentile Christians, and that 
both Gentile and Jew, with the same exception, ac- 
knowledged the authority of all the Apostles. The bulk 
of Jewish Christians were distinguished from Gentile 
believers simply by their observance of their national 
ceremonies, not by repudiation of Paul. But Gentile 
Christianity was the advancing, growing side of the 
Church, and the importance to it of the smaller body who 
still clung to their traditional rites was daily lessening. 
The Church was grappling with wider questions than 
that which Jewish Christianity presented to it, and was 
content to leave the latter to its own course. It was 
contending for independent right to toleration under 
Roman law. It was meeting the assaults of heathen tra- 
dition and philosophy. To many of its members the 


GENTILE AND JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 127 


claims of Judaizing Christianity were perhaps unknown. 
Certainly the Church believed in no division among the 
Apostles. The extreme faction of the Ebionites still 
indeed continued ; and the excesses of Gnosticism, no- 
tably the undue exaltation of Paul by Marcion, may 
in some quarters have caused reactions in the opposite 
direction. In some such way may the anti-Paulinism 
of the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions be ex- 
plained. Through the Old Testament also, and, as we 
shall see, through the Alexandrian philosophy, Judaism 
entered into the life of Gentile Christianity. But both 
of these sources of influence must be distinguished from 
the body of Jewish Christians, who continued to unite 
Christianity with observance of the ritual law, and who, 
as the alleged followers of the original Apostles, have 
been made to play in critical theories so important a 
part in the formation of the Church. These were in 
Justin’s time a dwindling minority, which was being 
rapidly swallowed up in the growth of Gentile Christi- 
anity ; and the theories which would make them to have 
exerted so great an influence in the second century as 
to unseat Paul from his apostleship and to recast the 
Church’s remembrance of the apostolic age and to dictate 
the controlling spirit of the resulting Catholic Church 
are, we think, in the light of the evidence of the second 
century itself, entirely baseless. 


LECTURE IV. 


THE TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN TO THE INFLUENCE OF 
PHILOSOPHY ON EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 


wi Ves Christianity had come into contact with, and 
was being affected by, the philosophic thought of 
Justin shows the Gentile world, is obvious from the writ- 
apres ings of Justin. We have already seen that he 
phy. pleaded for the toleration of his religion on 
the ground that it was not only elevating to society but 
was a philosophy, and should therefore be allowed, like 
other philosophies, freedom of opinion. We have men- 
tioned, also, that in the Dialogue he formally declares 
Christianity to be the true philosophy, and himself a 
philosopher because a Christian. 
Such language is in marked contrast with that of the 


Contract New Testament. In the latter the word 
qathihe τ δ philosophy as" only: once used, and then 
ment. as a probable cause of peril to Christians.} 


The rising heresies, against which the later Epistles of 
Paul warned the churches, were no doubt Jewish and 
ritualistic in their immediate origin and character, but 
were ultimately derived from pagan speculations, and 
seem to have been the first movements of the mighty 
current of Gnosticism which afterward poured in upon 
the Church. Later indications of the same general 
1 Col. ii. 8. 


2 CE Col. 1: 16; ii. 8, 16, 18, 23; 1 Tim. 1. 4; iv. 3, 43 wi 205 
2 Tim. ii. 16-18; iv. 4; Tit. iii. 9. 


PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 129 


movement may be observed in Second Peter! and Jude? 
in the Apocalypse,’ and in the Doketism combated in 
the First Epistle of John.4 It is true that Paul says “we 
speak wisdom among them that are perfect,’ and there- 
by declares that Christianity already possessed, and im- 
plies that eventually it would elaborate, a philosophy of 
its own; but he adds “yet not the wisdom of this world,”® 
and thereby rejects what was currently known as philos- 
ophy in the pagan society of that day. While at Athens 
he quoted from a Stoic hymn, and expressed ideas with 
which some of his auditors may have agreed and which 
seem to show the Apostle’s acquaintance with Stoicism ; 
yet even then he spoke of the previous ages as “ times 
of ignorance,” and evinced no real sympathy with the 
popular philosophies themselves® The coincidences 
which have been often pointed out between Saint Paul’s 
phraseology and that of the later Stoics’ may show that 
in Tarsus he had learned at least the ethics of that sys- 
tem, but do not show that pagan thought had moulded 
any of his conceptions of Christian doctrine.2 Whether, 
in addition to this, there are any Alexandrian elements 
in the Epistle to the Hebrews or not, whether Saint 
John took his Logos doctrine from Philo or not, it 
must be admitted that the New Testament writings as 
a whole belonged to a circle as far removed from the 
speculations of their day as philosophy itself was as yet 


1 2 Pet. ii. 1, 2, 10, 12, 15, 18, 19. 2 Jude 4. 

3 Rev. ii. 4, 24. 

41 John i. 1; ii. 22; iv. 2,3. Cf. Mansel’s Gnostic Heresies, 
Lectt. IV. and V. 

5 1 Cor. ii. 6. ® Acts xvii. 22-31. 

7 Cf. Lightfoot-on Philippians, “Saint Paul and Seneca.” 

8 Cf. Aubé’s Saint Justin, p. 87, note 1. 

9 Cf. Weiss’s Einleitung, p. 591, note. He wholly rejects the 
Philonian source of the Logos doctrine. 

9 


130 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


either ignorant of the new religion or contemptuously 
indifferent to it. 

But when Gentile Christianity was firmly established, 
and, conscious of a universal mission, began to meet the 
entities habits and thoughts of the pagan world, it 
of eee was necessarily affected by the currents of 
ΣΝ ΊΩΣ the new atmosphere in which it found itself. 

’ On the one hand, Gnosticism sought to unite 
the Christian idea of a revealed redemption with the 
speculations concerning absolute Being and the origin 
of evil which had already been elaborated in the Pla- 
tonic and especially Jewish-Platonic schools and in the 
religious philosophy of the East On the other hand, 
writers who had no sympathy with Gnosticism began 
to realize the problems which were forced on Christian- 
ity by the culture of the age. The new religion had to 
explain its position toward pagan antiquity as it had 
already done toward Hebrew antiquity. It began to be 
defended either by or against philosophy. The way 
accordingly soon opened for a philosophy of its own, 
— for an effort to present it in such wise as to satisfy 
the intellectual needs of converts from thoughtful pagan 
circles. Already in the so-called Epistle of Barnabas,” 
we may see a Christian reflecting on the deeper meaning 
of the common faith. The lost Apologies of the Athe- 
nians Quadratus and Aristides, presented to the Em- 
peror Trajan, are said by Jerome? to have cited the 
writings of philosophers. If we may place so early 
the Epistle to Diognetus,* we learn from it the interest 
which a cultivated pagan took in Christianity, wnile 


1 Cf. Mansel’s Gnostic Heresies, Lect. IT. 35 ς.1. 

8 Letter to Magnus. 

4 Cf. Otto’s Justini Opera, tom. ii. proleg. Lxii. for account of 
opinions as to date of the Epistle. 


PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 131 


the Epistle itself bears evidence of having been the 
product of a well-educated man. The author does not 
indeed follow the philosophers, any more than he does 
the superstitions of the people or the ritual of the Jews. 
He is truly scriptural in doctrine, and explains the late 
appearance of the Saviour by God’s determination to let 
man discover his own helplessness. Yet his description 
of the benefits which Diognetus would obtain from 
Christianity — such as the knowledge and love of the 
Father, and similarity of character with Him —is such 
as would have appealed most strongly to a religiously 
inclined philosopher, as will appear from Justin him- 
self! Thus the contact of Christianity and philosophy 
had begun before Justin wrote. But in him , τ τη 
we find it for the first time, among anti- the union 
Gnostic writers, openly avowed. He was a kaw 
student of philosophy as well as of Christianity. He 
passed from the former to the latter as to a higher stage 
of culture. He did not break from philosophy in be- 
coming a Christian. He carried into Christianity many 
of his previous ideas. Paganism was to him not merely 
the development of evil. It contained also a positive 
preparation for, and anticipations of, the revelation of 
Christ. As in the earlier Epistles of Paul we find set 
forth the difference between the Gospel and the Law, 
but in the Epistle to the Hebrews the fulfilment of the 
old economy in the new; so in the Epistle to Diognetus 
we find paganism set forth as a proof of man’s inability 
to attain to God and righteousness, but in Justin we 
1 The last two chapters of the Epistle to Diognetus are prob- 
ably by a later hand, and are more in Justin’s style. They speak 
of Christianity as not contrary to reason (οὐ παραλόγως ζητῶ), of 
the author as a teacher of the Gentiles, of the Logos “ who ap- 


peared as if new and was found old,” and of the tree of knowl- 
edge as a symbol of the true Christian gnosis. 


192 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


find the fulfilment by Christianity of the partial truths 
and gleams of light which in the pagan world had pre- 
pared for it. 

Let us, first, then recall the condition of pagan thought 
Philosophy at this period, and observe Justin’s acquaint- 
at this pe- ance with it and the judgments which he 

passes upon its various types. 

He appears to have been a man of moderate culture. 
He was certainly not a genius nor an original thinker. 
Taetints He had an inquiring and an impressible 
mind. mind. He was naturally serious, and anx- 
ious to obtain light on the great questions of life and 
God. He went from one teacher to another, but was 
soon dissatisfied with all. Yet from nearly all he re- 
ceived ideas which continued to germinate in his mind. 
He was a true eclectic, and for this very reason is a far 
better mirror of the intellectual forces to which he was 
exposed than if he had been an original genius. 

We should remember that the two marked character- 
istics of the culture of that age were its eclecticism and 
its theological spirit. The great schools of 
Greek philosophy, while still continuing in 
name, had long ceased to maintain in purity their origi- 
nal doctrines. The age of discovery and conviction had 
long since been followed by that of doubt, comparison, 
and mutual approximation. Moreover, the fusion οἵ 
peoples consequent upon the Roman conquest of the civ- 
ilized world had caused Greek culture to spread among 
alien races, who appropriated it in parts and combined it 
with elements of their own. The result was a search 
by cultured men for the truth in all schools of thought, 
together with lurking scepticism as to the possibility of 
real knowledge; a general acceptance of philosophy as 
the only guide of life and valuation of the popular 


Eclecticism. 


PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 133 


religions for political purposes only, together with a 
refusal to follow exclusively any of the historic philo- 
sophical systems. Cicero, who was not unlike Justin 
in his travels from philosopher to philosopher while 
searching for truth, exhibits by his scepticism as to 
absolute knowledge, by his sense of ‘the supreme im- 
portance of ethics, and by his deliberate comparison and 
criticism of the various schools, the rising spirit of the 
age of the Cesars. The later Platonists were especially 
eclectic. They mingled with the doctrines of their 
master ideas taken from the Stoics and from Aristotle, 
and sought in this way to build up a system of univer- 
sal knowledge, and to overthrow the scepticism in which 
the men of the so-called “ Middle Academy” had fallen. 
At the same time there was no philosophy which ex- 
erted greater influence over others than Platonism. It 
modified and mingled with nearly every other school of 
thought. The Roman Stoics, depreciating physical in- 
quiries and turning attention to ethical problems, not 
only approached the same practical spirit which other 
schools were showing, but often spoke of God and 
immortality in a manner more Platonic than Stoic. 
Meanwhile Philo of Alexandria had deliberately fused 
elements from both Platonism and Stoicism with faith 
in the Hebrew Scriptures, and had produced a mixed 
system by which, through the medium of the Hellenistic 
Jews, Greek thought acted upon the Christian mind of 
a century later. The Epicureans held most loyally to 
the tenets of their predecessors; while on the opposite 
extreme from them such men as Plutarch and Maximus 
of Tyre stand as the attractive representatives of eclec- 
ticism pure and simple, taking from all schools what- 
ever subserved their moral and religious purposes. For 
the eclecticism of the age of which we are speaking was 


134 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


mainly governed by a desire to serve practical and moral 
interests. There was a general disposition, in spite of 
the speculative spirit of some, to regard inquiries con- 
cerning the possibility of knowledge and the ultimate 
nature of things as hopeless and useless. Philosophical 
doubt was widely diffused, and caused attention to be 
turned to the direction of conduct. Wherever also the 
Roman temper was prevalent, there philosophy natu- 
rally took a practical turn. Hence Platonist and Stoic 
alike laid stress on questions of ethics, and sought to 
exhibit wherein consists a truly rational and noble 
human life. 

Moreover, closely connected with this was the theo- 
logical aim and religious spirit of the whole period of 
ΠΗ ancient eclecticism. Many forces united to 

eological : . 5 
a πο produce this feature. The influence of Ori- 
of philoso. ental thought, of which Judaism was a part, 
Phy: was a not unimportant factor. The fall of 
polytheism before the advance of philosophy led to gen- 
eral belief in the unity of God. The influence of scep- 
ticism united with the speculative spirit itself not only 
to lay stress on practical ends, but also to emphasize 
the divine transcendence and to represent God as the 
unknowable First Cause. At the same time the sense 
of dependence and of man’s abject need of divine help 
gave a deeply religious tone to the best writers of 
the period. The human mind stood on the brink of the 
impassable gulf which philosophy placed between the 
finite and the infinite, and inconsistently but necessarily 
talked of God as if He had been found. It is easy to 
select from heathen authors passages which seem to 
utter an almost Christian spirit of faith and resignation 
More and more did philosophy itself take a mystical 


1 Cf, Aubé’s Saint Justin, part iii. ch. iii. 


PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 135 


direction, until in Neo-Platonism it actually became a 
religion. In the second century this varied process 
was in full movement. In proportion as the Platonic 
influence was predominant was a real belief in God 
maintained, yet with an increasing stress on His tran- 
scendence and on the need of intermediate beings to 
reveal Him to mankind. To our minds it appears that 
the preparation of philosophy for Christianity was com- 
plete. The inability of reason clearly to make God 
known was manifest. The necessity of finding God was 
equally demonstrated. The truths which had been dis- 
covered needed to find a full and orderly exhibition, 
and to be properly adjusted by the actual revelation of 
God. The time was ripe for that movement, of which 
Justin was the earliest representative, by which Chris- 
tianity was set forth as the reconciliation of the terrible 
discord between the conclusions of reason and the needs 
of humanity, and as the expression of all that the human 
mind had learned to be good and true.! 

In Justin’s writings, then, we recognize the character- 
istics of the period which we have described. ses 

= Z iy Ὰ ustin shows 

Of his early search for truth in the spirit the spirit of 
of eclecticism mention has already been ae bs 
made. He yielded finally to the charms of Platonism.? 


1 Cf. Zeller’s Outlines of Greek Philosophy, pp. 274, ete.; His- 
tory of Eclecticism, passim; Uberweg’s History of Philosophy, 
i. 212-262; Aubé’s Saint Justin, part iii. 

2 How far Justin grasped the real system of Plato is a ques- 
tion on which there has been difference of opinion. Doubtless 
he read into Plato much of later thought as well as of Bible doc- 
trine; but he was certainly acquainted with most of the Platonic 
books. Reminiscences appear in his Apologies (i. 2, 57, 58; ii. 2) 
of the Apology of Socrates; and the Introduction to the Dialogue 
seems to have been moulded after the Socratic Dialogues. We 
find in Justin, also, clear traces of or quotations from the Repub- 
lic [Ap. i. 3 (Rep. v. p. 473, ed. Steph.), 44 (Rep. x. p. 617); ii. 3, 


136 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


But he was acquainted also with Stoicism, and though 
rejecting its philosophy, praises its ethics, and appears 
to have taken from the Stoics one of his most charac- 
teristic phrases.1_ Most of all, however, does he echo the 
mind of his age in his conception of philosophy itself. 
“The duty of philosophy,” he says, “is to investigate 
concerning the divine.”? “Philosophy leads us to God, 
and alone commends us.” From his Stoic, Peripatetic, 
and Pythagorean teachers he was unable to learn of 
God; and hence the pleasure which even before his 
conversion he found in Plato, since by his aid he ex- 
pected “henceforth to look upon God,” —“ for this,” he 
adds, “is the end of the Platonic philosophy.”* When 
he was questioned by the aged Christian who was the 
means of his conversion as to what philosophy is, Jus- 
tin replied, ‘“‘ Philosophy is the apprehension of the real 
and the cognition of the true;”® and both he and his 
questioner evidently understood “the real” and “the 
true” to mean God.6 So, finally, he was led to accept 


10 (Rep. x. p. 595); Dial. 4 (Rep. vii. p. 509)]; the Critias [ Ap. i. 
68 (Crit. p.43)]; the Phedo [Dial. 3 (Pheed. p. 85), 4 (Pheed. pp. 
65, 66, 67, 72, 76, 92), 5,and Ap.i. 18 (Phed. p. 107)]; the Gorgias 
[Ap.i. 8 (Gorg. p. 543)]; the Philebus [ Dial. 4 (Phil. p. 30)]; the 
Timeus [Ap. i. 26; ii. 10 (Tim. p. 28); i. 60 (Tim. p. 36); Dial. 
5 (Tim. p. 28)]; the Pheedrus [Ap. i. 8 (Pheedr. p. 249); Dial. 4 
(Pheedr. ibid.), 5 (Pheedr. p. 246) ], and, perhaps, the Laws [Ap. 
ii. 9 (Legg. ii. 661)]; the Parmenides [Dial. 3 (Parm. p. 127)]; 
and the Clitophon [Ap. ii. 12 (Clitoph. p. 407)], as well as the 
second Ps.-Platonic Epistle [Ap. i. 60 (Ep. ii. 312)]. Cf. Otto’s 
Justini Opera, tom. i. index iii. 2. 

1 λόγος σπερματικὸς. If Justin did not take the phrase from 
the Stoics, at least it originated with them. Cf. below. 

2 Dial. 1. ἐξετάζειν περὶ τοῦ θείου. 8. Dial. 2. 

4 Tbid. 

5 Dial. 8, ἐπιστήμη τοῦ ὄντος καὶ τοῦ ἀληθοῦς ἐπίγνωσις. 

6 The old man immediately asks, “ But what do you call God?” 
to which Justin replies, “That which always maintains the same 


PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 137 


Christianity because in it he found God revealed. 
Thus Justin was reared in the idea that philosophy 
was theology, and that the grand aim of speculation was 
to attain to the knowledge of God, and so to learn how 
life should be regulated. He came to Christianity with 
this strong religious and moral aspiration. He carried 
over into Christianity the same conception of philoso- 
phy, and believed that he had at last found its reali- 
zation. He affords, therefore, a fair representation of 
both the eclectic and theological tone of the best cul- 
ture of the pagan world, and of the natural course 
by which that culture would, if at all, pass over into 
Christianity. 

When, then, we read the judgments which Justin here 
and there expresses from his later Christian standpoint 
upon the various philosophic schools, we find, Pe 
as we would expect, a free criticism of them eahaan 
combined with evident traces of their con- “°° 
tinued influence. Of Cynics? and Epicureans? he 
speaks only with contempt, and does not appear to 
have thought teachers of these schools worth seeking. 
His Peripatetic 5 teacher was more concerned about his 
fee than about the communication of knowledge to his 
pupils ; but Justin nowhere mentions Aristotle, and be- 
trays little of his influence.® Of the Pythagoreans he 


nature, and in the same manner, and is the cause of all other 
things.” Thirlby and Aubé read τὸ ὄν for θεὸν. Otto retains, 
with most editors, θεὸν. 

1 Dial. 7, 8. 2 Ap. ii. 3. 

S Apne’, 12, 15: 4 Vial. 2. 

5 Weizsicker (Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol. xii. 60-119) sees 
Aristotelian influences in Justin’s idea of God dwelling immov- 
ably in his own place beyond the heavens (Dial. 127), and in the 
method of argument concerning the natural mortality of the soul 


(Dial. 5). 


138 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


speaks with respect,! but objects to the long course of 
intellectual discipline required by them before their 
scholars could be even prepared to behold the beautiful 
and the good. It was, as we have said, Stoicism and 
still more Platonism which attracted him ; and his judg- 
ments upon these systems are frequent and often elab- 
orate. He admired the ethics of the former,? and 
appeals to Heraclitus, who has been called 5 
“the spiritual ancestor” of the Stoics, and to 
Musonius Rufus, who was banished by Nero, as ex- 
amples of those who were hated and put to death 
because the Logos dwelt in them.® He points out also 
that the Stoics, like the Christians, taught the future 
destruction of the world by fire. Yet his opposition to 
the Stoic philosophy was very decided, and he expresses 
it freely in the Apologies, no doubt remembering the 
“philosophic Cesar,’ who, he hoped, would read his 
book. He distinguishes the Christian doctrine of the 
conflagration of the world from that of the Stoics, point- 
ing out that the former represented it as a divine act of 
judgment, but the latter as a natural and necessary pro- 
cess and including God Himself.’ He objects to their 
materialism,’ but most of all to their doctrine of fate, 


Stoicism. 


AMD 1al Ὁ. δ: 

2 Justin referred, of course, to the Neo-Pythagoreans who were 
more a religious sect than a philosophic school, and had borrowed 
largely from other systems. Cf. Zeller’s Outlines of Greek Philos- 
ophy, p. 306. 

® Ap. ii. 7, 8. 

4 Cf. Gildersleeve’s note, Apologies of Justin Martyr, p. 221; 
Zeller’s Outlines of Greek Philosophy, p. 233. 

5 Neither Heraclitus nor Musonius was really put to death. 
This is one of Justin’s mistakes. 

6 Ap. i. 20, 60; ii. 7. (AD 20) 11. ὦ: 

8 Ap. ii. 7. He distinguishes the Stoic λόγος περὶ ἀρχῶν καὶ 
ἀσωμάτων from their λόγος περὶ ἠθῶν, and says that the former, 


PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 139 


and declares their philosophy to be destructive of spirit- 
ual ideas, to merge God in the changing universe, and 
to destroy the inherent difference between virtue and 
vice! In his Stoic instructor Justin found no knowl- 
edge of God nor desire to know Him, and his own 
spiritual aspirations and his deep sense of human re- 
sponsibility led him to see the radical hostility to these 
which, in spite of its lofty ethical teaching, the Stoic 
philosophy logically involved. When, on the other 
hand, he speaks of Platonism, he is not less 
free in criticism, but his sympathies are 
clearly exhibited. Plato, he says, like the Christians, 
taught a future judgment,? and derived his doctrines 
of creation? and of human responsibility ὁ and of “the 
second and third Powers in the universe ”® from Moses. 
Justin does not seem to have thought that the Platonic 
doctrine that God made the world from formless matter 
was inconsistent with God’s absolute authorship of the 
world. He rather maintains that this was the doctrine 
of Moses too. LEither he did not realize that the eter- 
nity of matter was opposed to the Christian doctrine of 
creation, or he understood Plato to mean by formless 
matter a practical negation.® So also he quotes from 
the Timzeus the statement concerning the World-soul 
that God “placed it like a y in the universe,” declar- 
ing that Plato referred to the Second Power in the 


Platonism. 


according to which nothing is real which is not material, is incon- 
sistent with the spiritual directions of the latter. 

SAD; 1 7. 2 Ap. i. 8. 8 Ap. i. 20, 59. 

* Ap. i. 44. 5 Ap. i. 60. 

6 Cf. Zeller’s Outlines of Greek Philosophy, pp. 146, etc.; 
Aubé’s Saint Justin, p. 123; Von Engelhardt’s Das Christenthum 
Justins, p. 137. Justin was misled both by his Platonism and by 
the expression in Gen. i. 2; but he seems to have felt no neces- 
sity for the metaphysical doctrine of creation ex nihilo. 


140 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


universe, and took the idea from the account of the 
brazen serpent.! He appears to have considered Plato's 
“World-soul” as an attempt to teach the doctrine of 
the personal Logos, thus reading into Plato, as he did 
into the Old Testament, his Christian ideas, and seeing 
in that philosopher the one who approached most nearly 
to the truth.2 But, on the other hand, he freely differs 
from Plato. That philosopher, he says, teaches the 
punishment of the wicked for only a limited period of 
time and in other bodies than their own, whereas Chris- 
tians teach the everlasting punishment of the wicked 
and in the same bodies which they now have. In the 
introduction to the Dialogue, moreover, Justin evidently 
indicates his points of conscious departure from Plato- 
nism. He no longer imagines, as he did before conver- 
sion, that by intellectual discipline alone, or by subduing 
the hindrances offered by the body, he would be enabled 
to apprehend God; but he has discovered the moral con- 
ditions of this blessedness as they had been taught by 
revelation and as he now perceives that reason itself 
teaches. No longer does he believe in the pre-exist- 
ence of souls, nor even in their natural immortality.* 
The latter he claims to deny on the Platonic principle 
that whatever is created is perishable. Hence he refers 
immortality solely to the will of God,>—a view which 
indeed Plato approaches in the Timeeus, but which was 
not his main argument for immortality.6 Justin ex- 


1 Justin says: “Moses took brass and made it into a cross, and 
set it in the holy tabernacle.” Ap. i. 60. 

2 So he finds (i. 60) in the obscure expression of the Ps.-Platonic 
Ep. ii., ra δὲ τρίτα περὶ τὸν τρίτον, a reference to the Holy Spirit, 
likewise taken from Gen.i.2. Athenagoras (Supplic. 23) quotes the 
same passage, with apparently the same view of it as Justin’s. 

8 Dial. 2, 3. 4 Dial. 4, 5, 141. δ᾽ Dial. 

6 Cf. Uberweg’s History of Philosophy, i. 127, ete. 


PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 141 


presses his conscious attitude to Platonism when he 
says, “I strive to be found a Christian, not because 
the teachings of Plato are different from those of Christ, 
but because they are not in all respects similar, as 
neither are those of the others, Stoics and poets and 
historians.” To him Plato was a theist who had 
learned much from Moses and had been peculiarly 
receptive of the divine Logos,— that “light which 
lighteth every man coming into the world.” Despite 
his quotations from other of Plato’s works, it would 
appear that he knew Platonism mainly as it is rep- 
resented in the Timeeus, and hence cannot be said 
to have fully grasped the real system of the philoso- 
pher2 But he found in Platonism, as he understood 
it, the nearest approach to Christianity, and felt that 
no break was required with its spirit and _princi- 
ples to pass into the clearer light of Christian reve- 
lation. 

Justin, then, represents the religious and moral ele- 
ments of pagan culture finding their satisfaction in the 
religion of Christ. We see in him what af- The inau- 
finities there were between at least one side oon 
of paganism and Christianity, and how it histheology. 
was possible for the latter to take into itself ideas 
and forms of thought which had been elaborated outside 
of the sphere of revelation. Let us now examine his 
presentation of Christian theology with the particular 
purpose of noting the continued influence of the phi- 
losophical ideas with which we have found that he 
approached it. 

1. First, take his idea of God. This will show the 


t Ap. ii, 13. 
2 Cf. Jowett’s Introduction to the Timeus in his translation of 
Plato’s Dialogues. 


142 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


intellectual foundation on which his idea of religion was 
L The idea PUit. To set forth the Christian doctrine of 
of God. God was required of him, as an Apologist. 
To show that he had truly found God was, in view of 
his conception of philosophy, required of him as a phi- 
losopher. His Christianity, of course, found in the idea 
ot God its controlling principle. How, then, does Justin 
represent God ? 

As against polytheism he sets forth the divine inde- 
pendence. God is not to be worshipped as if He needs 
God’s inde. @nything On the other hand, against the 
pendence. = abstractions of philosophy he sets forth the 
reality of a living God. Not only do Christians believe 
in Him more firmly than others,? but He is 


A living 

reality. “the most true,” “the real,” + having alone 

life in Himself. He is represented, likewise, as exer- 
Oe δῶν ἘΞ . Ta 6 

Moral cising every noble moral quality. He is “ the 

quahties. Father of righteousness and temperance and 


other virtues.”® In Him “reside temperance and jus- 
tice and philanthropy.”? He is “ good,” § especially to- 
ward men ;° the righteous observer of all things ; 19 com- 
Author of Passionate and long-suffering." So is He the 
all. absolute author of all things. He is called 
“the Father and Maker of all,” 5. “the Father and Lord 
of all,” #8 “the Father and King of the heavens,” !* or sim- 
ply “the Father of all” including Christ and man as 


1 Ap. i. 10. 2 Ap. i. 18. 

8 Ap. i. 6. 4 Ap.i.13. τοῦ ὄντως θεοῦ. 
5 Dial. 6. 6. Ap. i. 6. 

7 Ap. i. 10. @ Ap. i. 14, 16. 

9 Ap. i. 10. 10 Ap. ii. 12. 

1 Dial. 108. 12 Ap. i. 8; Dial. 140. 

18 Ap. i. 12, 32, 86, 40, 44,61. 18 Ap. ii. 12. 


15 Ap. i. 12, 45,65; ii. 6,9; Dial. 7, 32, 56, 68, 67, 74, 105, 115, 
UE 


PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 143 


well as the universe. He is therefore the Creator,! and 
Cause of all2 He knows both the actions re 
and the thoughts of all His creatures. He aes 
can do whatever He wills. He foreknows everything ; 
yet not because events are necessary, nor be- 
cause He has decreed that men shall act as 
they do or be what they are; but foreseeing all events, 
He ordains reward or punishment accord- 
ingly. His interest in man is unceasing. 
He is no impassive observer of human life,® but is ac- 
tively concerned in the conduct of His rational 6045, inter- 
creatures,’ requiring their obedience and en- ¢t in man. 
forcing His moral law.’ He spares the wicked world 
that more may be saved,® and that the hopes of the 
Christians may be fulfilled!® It was out of goodness 
and for man’s sake that He made the world” ,,.. ata! 
and it was in accordance with His counsel ¢s- 
that Christ came. He cares, finally, not merely for 
the universe in general, but for each indi- 4.4 care of 
vidual in particular.’® individuals. 
But at the same time Justin speaks of God in ways 
which hardly seem consistent with these expressions 
which have been cited. He is not only spe- γε Suns 
cially fond of calling Him the “ unbegotten,” 4 sis placed on 


the “ ionless.” 15 ple ς ἘΠΕ His transcen- 
e “passionless,” the “ incorruptible,” 16 the dence. 


Omnipotent. 


No fatalism. 


1 ποιητὴς or δημιουργὸς. Ap. i. 13,16, 57, 58; ii.5; Dial. 7, 16, 
34, 84, 102, 116. 

2 Dial. 5. Sips tert 2 eis ko: 

* Ap. i. 19; Dial. 5, 6, 16, 84, 142. 

6 Ap. i. 12, 43, 44; ii, 7; Dial. 16, 141. 


6 Ap. i. 28. 7 Ap. i. 37. 
OUD: te iis ΤΠ ga ὃν 9 Ap. i. 28. 
DoAp- 11: 7: 11 Ap. i. 10; ii. 4. 
12 Ap. ii. 6. 15 Dale 1: 


14 Ap. i. 14, 25, 49, 53; ii. 12; Dial. δ, 114, 126, 127. 
16 ἀπαθής. Ap. i. 12; ii. 12. 16 Dial. 5. 


144 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


“unchangeable,” ! but he describes the divine transcen- 
dence in most extreme terms. God is exalted above all 
the universe, and has an ineffable glory and name.2 He 
can be called by no fixed name. In fact, being unbe- 
gotten, He has no name.* The terms “ Father,” “ God,” 
“ Creator,” “ Lord,” and “ Master” do not describe what He 
is, but are mere appellations to set forth His manifested 
activities.? These expressions, it should be observed, are 
capable of a meaning quite unobjectionable from a New 
Testament point of view, but they are used by Justin 
with a partiality which shows that the transcendence of 
Deity occupied a controlling place in his mind. This 
appears still more clearly when, in arguing that the 
God who appeared to Abraham was not the Father and 
Maker of all, Justin insists® that the latter “remains 
ever in the supercelestial places, visible to none, and 
never holding intercourse directly ‘ with any.” He also 
thinks it absurd to say that the Father and Maker 
of all, having left the supercelestial places, was visible 
on a little portion of the earth,’ and declares that “the 
ineffable Father and Lord of all neither has come to any 
place, nor walks, nor sleeps, nor rises up, but remains in 
his own place, wherever that is, quick to behold and 
quick to hear, having neither eyes nor ears, but being of 
indescribable might; and He sees all things, and knows 
all things, and none of us escapes His observation; and 
He is not moved or confined to a spot in the whole 
world, for He existed before the world was made. How, 
then, could He talk with any one, or be seen by any 
one, or appear on the smallest portion of the earth ?”® 


1 Ap. i. 13. 2 Ap. i. 93 ii. 10, 12, 13. 
3 Ap. i. 10. 4 Ap. i. 61; ii. 6. 

5 Ap. ii. 6. 6 Dial. 56. 

7 δι’ ἑαυτοῦ. 8 Dial. 60. 


® Dial. 127. 


PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 145 


God therefore is, according to Justin, the eternal, im- 
movable, unchanging Cause and Ruler of the pant trom 
universe, who resides afar off above the creation. 
heavens, and is incapable of coming into immediate 
contact with any of His creatures, but is observant of 
and interested in them though removed from and un- 
approachable by them. He is the universal Father, be- 
cause He is the author of all existences. He Hana 
is most real, yet most distant; living and ac- termediate 
tive, yet so transcendent in His nature as to Cae 
act and be known only through an intermediate being. 
We think it evident that two conceptions of Deity 
were struggling with each other in Justin’s mind. God 
had become a living reality to him. Not two concep- 
only so, but God had become a living factor nee ae 
in human history, a real and known force in harmonized. 
human life. Christ had revealed the character and will 
of the Father of all, and had brought Him practically 
near to men. But at the same time Justin had not 
freed himself from the philosophical conception of Deity 
as simply the unknowable and transcendent Cause. He 
had not learned the other truth of God’s immanence, and 
had not been able intellectually to adjust the fact, which 
he nevertheless felt to be true, of God’s intimate rela- 
tion to believers. In the introduction to the Dialogue 
he defines God as “that which always maintains the 
same nature, and in the same manner, and is the cause 
of all other things.”+ He also appeals to Plato’s de- 
scription of that “ Being who is the cause of all dis- 
cerned by the mind, having no color, nor form, nor 
magnitude, nor anything visible to the eye; but It is 
something of this sort, that is beyond all essence,? unut- 
1 Dial. 3. 


2 ἐπέκεινα πάσης οὐσίας. De Rep. vii. 509. 
10 


146 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


terable, and inexplicable, but alone beautiful and good, 
coming suddenly to souls that are naturally well-dispo- 
sitioned on account of their affinity with, and desire to 
see Him.”! It would appear that this conception of 
Deity, which he obtained from Platonism, and with 
which he united the Aristotelian idea of the immova- 
bility of the First Cause,? remained substantially with 
Justin after he became a Christian, and that his doctrine 
of the Logos, to which we shall next refer, by occupying 
the place which would have called forth an expression 
of the divine immanence and by removing the Supreme 
Deity from immediate intercourse with men, left the doc- 
trine of the transcendence of God in all its bareness, and 
unadjusted to that practical revelation of His personal 
nearness and constant activity in nature and human life 
which had been given by Christianity. Justin did not 
merely say, like the fourth Evangelist, that “no man hath 
seen God at any time.” He went further. He did not 
fully appreciate the other words recorded by the same 
authority, “ He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” 
nor those of the Apostle to the Gentiles, “ In Him we 
live and move and have our being; for He is not far from 
any one of us.” God is indeed described by him as a per- 
son would be. All things issue not from necessity, but 
from the divine will and for a divine purpose. God is 
the free and sovereign Creator of the universe. On the 
one hand, He is a living reality, personally watchful and 
regulative of His creation, the author of all holiness and 
salvation as well as of all life. On the other hand, He 
is far removed from the world, and necessarily discon- 
nected with it, save as He operates through that Logos, 


1 Dial. 4. The passage is a summary of Platonic ideas. 
2 Cf. Weizsicker (Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol. xii. 60, etc.). 


PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 147 


whose existence alone bridges the gulf which would 
otherwise have been impassable and inexplicable. Yet 
what was more natural than that one coming from 
Platonism to Christianity should have been unable 
to adjust the idea of God to which he had been 
accustomed to the new revelation in which he had 
believed ? 1 


1 Cf. Weizsicker, Ibid., pp. 75-77; Von Engelhardt, Ibid., 
pp. 127-139 and 231-241; Stihlin’s Justin der Mirtyrer und 
sein neuester Beurtheiler (a criticism of Von Engelhardt from 
the orthodox side); Hilgenfeld’s Die neuorthodox Darstellung 
Justins (Zeitschr. fiir wissensch. Theol., 1879, p. 493; a criticism 
of Von Engelhardt from the rationalistic side). It is the merit of 
Von Engelhardt to have shown the influence on Justin’s theology 
of his abstract, philosophical conception of God. He does not 
deny that Justin believed practically in the personality of God, 
as both Stahlin and Hilgenfeld seem to suppose; but he thinks 
that Justin did not realize the full idea of divine personality. 
God was to Justin an individual being. I believe that Justin 
fully recognized God’s personality (so Weizsicker), but had not 
freed himself from phrases and ideas inconsistent with it. <A 
similar fact may be noticed, not only in Philo, who strove to com- 
bine the abstract conception of the Infinite with his Jewish mono- 
theism (cf. Zeller’s Outlines of Greek Philosophy, pp. 321, etc.), 
but also in the Roman Stoics, who spoke as if God were personal, 
though in fact they merged Him in the universe, and in such 
writers as Maximus of Tyre, who united the doctrine of divine 
transcendence with belief in Providence and a most religious 
spirit. Justin found through Christ a real, personal God; but 
this affected his previous Platonism only by removing him far 
from pantheism, and leading him to regard God as a single, in- 
dependent, but in Himself wholly unknowable being, the author 
and governor of creation, and yet of whom no predicate, except 
existence, can be philosophically and absolutely affirmed ; while 
his doctrine of the Logos not only kept him from modalism and 
emanationism, but increased his sense of the Father’s transcen- 
dence by making all divine activity to be mediated by the Logos. 
Von Engelhardt, however, seems to me to understate the Chris- 
tian element in Justin. Hilgenfeld still clings to the alleged 
Jewish-Christian character of the Apologist. 


148 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


II. We pass next to Justin’s doctrine of the Logos, 
Il. The which plays so important a part in his 
Logos. system of thought. 

The term occurs oftenest in the Apologies, but the 
most important points of the doctrine are brought out 
in the Dialogue. Justin introduces the word as a famil- 
iar one to both Christians and pagans. He uses the 
doctrine in the Apologies to explain the real nature 
of Christ, and why He is called Son of God and wor- 
shipped as divine by the Christians, as well as to ex- 
plain the real nature of Christianity and its relation 
to other truth. He uses it in the Dialogue to show 
that Christ was the God who appeared to Abraham 
and Moses. 

It is first, then, to be observed that Justin used “ Lo- 
gos” in the sense of “ Reason,” and conceived of the 
“Logos” divine Logos as the personal Reason of God. 
used inthe Thus we read :! “ Not only among the Greeks 
“Reason.” through Socrates were these things con- 
demned by reason,? but also among the barbarians by 
the Reason Himself? who took form, and became man, 
and was called Jesus Christ.” So he maintains‘ that 
those who have lived reasonably ὅ were Christians, while 
those who lived irrationally ® were wicked. Christians 
live “according to the knowledge and contemplation of 
the whole Logos (which is Christ),” being thus superior 
to those who formerly lived “according to a part of the 
germinal Logos.” * Christ is the whole Rationality,° the 
complete Reason. “ God begat from Himself a Beginning 

1 Ap. i. 5. 2 ὑπὸ λόγου. 

8 ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ λόγου. 4 Ap. i. 46. 

5 μετὰ λόγου. 5 ἀνεὺ λόγου. 

7 σπερματικοῦ λόγους Ap. ii. 8: ef. ii. 9, where Christ is said 


to be the ὀρθὸς λόγος. 
8 τὸ λογικὸν TO ὅλον. 


PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY 149 


before all creatures,! a certain rational Power, who is 
called by the Holy Spirit, Glory of the Lord, Son, 
Wisdom, Angel, God, Lord, and Logos.’ * The divine 
Logos, therefore, is essentially akin to reason in man. 
He is the active, divine power in the universe, which 
corresponds to and perfectly realizes the rational element 
in human nature. He is therefore the perfect Reason, of 
which human reason is the copy. I need notthe 
hardly observe that this is not the Johannean Jehamnean 
idea of the Logos. It manifestly was an effort term. 
to explain the Johannean doctrine by the philosophical 
idea of the divine Logos which Philo had elaborated 
out of Platonism and Stoicism. Justin, as will appear 
more fully in the next lecture, presupposes John. The 
philosophical, rationalizing explanation followed the 
statements of the fourth Evangelist, the absence from 
whom of this Platonizing conception is notable evi- 
dence that the famous Prologue was not the product 
of the same influences which wrought upon Justin’s 
mind. The latter, on the contrary, already betrays, in 
this fundamental idea of the Logos as Reason, the phi- 
losophical forces which were affecting his intellectual 
conception of Christianity. 

As to the nature and work of the Logos, The work of 
Justin expresses himself as follows: — tie Pane: 

First, as to His relation to God, the Father of all things. 
Justin teaches that the Logos was begotten by the will 
and power of God, at a point of time previous His relation 


: to the Ε 
to creation. He is the first begotten of God,* eer 


1 Or, “at the beginning before all creatures” (ἀρχὴν πρὸ 
πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων). 

2 ὁ θεὸς γεγέννηκε δύναμίν τινα ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ λογικήν. 

5. Dial..61. 

* πρῶτον γέννημα. Ap.i. 21. πρωτότοκος. Ap. i. 23,33; Dial. 
84, 85, 100, 116, 125, 138. 


150 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


a divine Power! He was begotten by the Father’s 
will? in a peculiar way, out of the Father Himself 
He is described as proceeding* before all creatures 
from the Father, by the latter's power and coun- 
sel;° the only-begotten by the Father of all things ;® 
the Offspring who was really brought forth from the 
Father’ before all creatures, and who was with the 
Father, and with whom the Father communed? As 
He was not a creature, so neither was He an emana- 
tion from God, like the rays of light from the sun; 1° 
nor did He proceed from God by abscission,! so that 
by begetting Him the substance of the Father was 
diminished.” Justin illustrates the generation of the 
Logos by the production of a word by speech, and the 
kindling of fire by fire.® The Logos then, according to 
Justin, was not personally eternal,“ but as a person was 


1 δύναμις. Ap. i. 23; Dial. 61, 105. 

2 ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς θελήσει. Dial. 61. 

8 ἰδίως ἐξ αὐτοῦ. Dial. 105. 

4 προελθόντα. 5 δυνάμει καὶ βουλῇ. Dial. 100. 
6 μονογενὴς τῷ πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων. Dial. 105. 

: γέννημα TH ὄντι ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς προβλήθεν. 


συνῆν τῷ πατρί. 9 προσομιλεῖ. Dial. 62. 
10 Dial. 128. 11 κατὰ ἀποτομήν. 
12 Dial. 61, 129. 13 Dial. 61. 


14 Cf. besides the references given above, Ap. ii. 6: 6 Λόγος 
πρὸ τῶν ποιημάτων Kal συνὼν Kal γεννώμενος ὅτε τὴν ἀρχὴν δι᾿ αὐτοῦ 
πάντα ἔκπισε. ... χριστὸς - - - λέγεται. This is the most difficult 
passage in Justin’s doctrine of the Logos. The clause ὅτε τὴν 
«TA. may qualify γεννώμενος or λέγεται. If the former, then the 
Logos was “begotten ” at the moment of creation. This view is 
taken by Semisch and Aubé (Saint Justin, p. 107); and Justin 
is said to have regarded the Logos as ἐνδιάθετος before creation 
and προφορικὸς at creation, in quite a Philonian manner. The 
opposite view is taken by Weizsiicker and Von Engelhardt, who 
think Justin conceived the Logos to have dwelt in communion 
with the Father a long time, but not eternally, before creation, 


PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 151 


the product of the Father’s will at some period be- 
fore creation. He is “in number”? other Begotten in 
than the God who made all things, but not {me by the 
“in mind.”2 Yet, as He was not created, Wil, 

but begotten, — as He was not an emanation, nor a mode 
of appearance, nor a temporary effulgence of divine glory 
and power,?—he must have been to Justin essentially 
one with the Father of all; and their numerical dis- 
tinctness from each other must have been as to per- 
sonality, not as to substance. Hence He is called 
God,® and divine;® while at the same time 
Justin, thinking of the generation of the 
Logos, speaks of the latter’s deity and divine powers 
as depending on the exercise of the Father’s will’? The 
Logos, moreover, is the agent and servant of Agent in 
the Father of all. As, on the one hand, the ‘Teton 
latter communes with the Logos, so is the Logos the 
organ of creation, which God “conceived and made by 
Him.”® He is also the Father’s messenger® and min- 


yet divine. 


and then ordained to be the agent of creation and redemption. 
Elsewhere, however, there is nothing said by Justin of a distinc- 
tion between λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and προφορικὸς, and the sentence 
does not require that construction here. 

1 ἕτερος ἀριθμῷ. 2 Or will, γνώμῃ. Dial. 56, 62, 128, 129. 

8 Dial. 128. 

* Cf. Dorner’s History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, 
i. 270-273. 

5. Ap. i. 63; Dial. 34, 36, 37, 56, 63, 76, 86, 87, 113, 115, 125, 
126, 128. 

& Ap. 1. 10. 

7 Ap.i.63. ὅς λόγος καὶ πρωτότοκος dv τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ θεὸς ὑπάρχει. 
Contrast this with John 1. 1. So Dial. 129. The Father of all is 
the Father and God of the Logos, the cause (αἴτιος) of His power 
and of His being Lord and God. 

8 Ap. i. 64; ii. 6; Dial. 84. 

9 Ap. i. 63; Dial. 34, 56, 58, 86, 93, 126, 128. ἄγγελος. Ap. i. 
63. ἀπόστολος. 


152 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


ister.1 The Logos is thus the manifested God, who ap- 
peared to the patriarchs and spoke through the prophets. 
He is God, capable of immediate self-revelation to His 
creatures. He is therefore the medium between the 
Transcendent One and the finite universe. Consubstan- 
tial with the Father of all, He was made numerically 
distinct from Him, and undertook to carry out His will. | 
He is therefore subordinate to the Father, both as to 
His person which was begotten in time and as to His 
office. He is worshipped, says Justin, by the Christians 
in the second place after God the Father of all. 

Such, in brief, was the nature of the Logos according 
to-our author. Such was Justin’s effort to explain the 
Effort to doctrine of the divinity of Christ, and His 
coon worship by the Christians. His theory evi- 
Christ. dently contained New Testament elements, 
and as evidently departed from others. We see in him 
the earliest effort of the uninspired Church to think out 
the doctrine of the Trinity ; and if Justin made what we 
consider errors, we should remember the larger amount 
of what we consider truth which he maintained, and 
should not expect the earliest theologian to escape all 
mistakes. But with his relations to the later Trinitarian 
discussion we are not now concerned. Our point is 
simply to observe that his doctrine of the Logos was 
Theinfu.  .2fluenced by the philosophical ideas with 
cute ohh which his earlier training had brought him 

into sympathy, and which were widely dif- 
fused in his age. Especially was this part of his the- 

1 Dial. ὅθ, 57, 60, 113, 125, 126. ὑπηρέτης. 

2 Ap.i. 6. ‘Him and the Son who came from Him and the 
host of other good angels and the prophetic Spirit we worship.” 
Cf. Lect. VI. Ap. i. 61. δευτέραν μὲν yap χώραν τῷ παρὰ θεοῦ 
λόγῳ. . . δίδωσι (scil. Πλάτων). So Ap. i. 18. Διὸν αὐτοῦ τοῦ 
ὅντως θεοῦ μαθόντες καὶ ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ ἔχοντες. 


PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 153 


ology influenced by the speculations of the Jewish 
Alexandrian school. That philosophy was Lo ee 
sufficiently Platonic to accord with the natu- Alexandri- 
ral bent of Justin’s mind. It was also suffi “Y""" 
ciently Biblical in its form and pretensions to accord 
with his valuation of the Old Testament. Further- 
more, Philo’s doctrine of the Logos was sufficiently like 
that of the fourth Evangelist —though the two were 
in reality utterly different! — to affect naturally the 
thought of the Church. It is even probable that Jus- 
tin was directly familiar with the literature of the 
Philonian school, and the writings of Philo himself. 
Dr, E. A. Abbott has pointed out a number of striking 
literary coincidences between Justin and Philo, all of 
which can hardly have been accidental.? It is indeed 
true that Justin differs from Philo more than he resem- 
bles him. Christianity made that difference, and in its 
turn deeply affected Justin’s use of philosophical thought 
and language. Nevertheless, an exaggerated idea of di- 


1 Cf. Weiss’s Einleitung, p. 591, note 5. 

2 Modern Review, July, 1882. The most striking of these 
coincidences are the use of the phrase λόγος σπερματικὸς, though 
Justin uses it differently from Philo, and the phrase itself was of 
Stoical origin (cf. below) ; the namelessness of God, and the rea- 
son for it, namely, that God is older than all other things (Ap. 
ii. 6); the names applied to the Logos (Dial. 126); the descrip- 
tion of the Logos as ἕτερος (Dial. 55) than God, and as τὴν μετὰ 
τὸν πρῶτον θεὸν δύναμιν (Ap. i. 59) compared with Philo’s δευτέρος 
θεὸς : and the illustration of the generation of the Logos by the 
kindling of fire from fire (Dial. 61). The other coincidences 
mentioned by Dr. Abbott seem to me doubtful. For Dr. Abbott’s 
argument against Justin’s use of the Fourth Gospel, see Lect. V. 
It is enough here to remark again that the presence of these 
Alexandrian elements in Justin and the absence of them from 
the Fourth Gospel would seem clearly to indicate that the latter 
was not the product of the philosophical influences betrayed by 
the former. 


154 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


vine Transcendence, and of the need of an intermediate 
Being or Beings to unite the Infinite and the finite, 
maintained its hold upon his mind, and led him to 
introduce into the very foundation of Christianity an 
element which was not only unchristian itself, but 
which seriously affected his whole apprehension of his 
religion. This latter fact will appear, if we next ob- 
serve the relation in Justin’s view of the Logos to 
man, as we have observed his relation to the divine 
Father. 

The Logos is represented not only as the agent of 
God in creation, but as the organ of all divine revela- 
The Logos tion. He is everywhere present and active, 
the organ of ‘but especially makes Himself known to and 
WOr: through the human mind; so that whatever of 
truth men possess comes from their relation to the divine 
His relation Logos. What that relation precisely is, Jus- 
to men: tin expresses very obscurely. He was certainly 
no pantheist. He did not regard the human reason as 
the manifestation of the divine. Yet for men to reason 
well is for them to partake of the divine Logos. We 
can only say that to Justin the human reason, includ- 
ing the whole rational and moral intelligence of man, 
was so akin to the divine, and the divine Reason was 
so universally present with the human, that the dictates 
of reason were revelations of the Logos himself! But 
whatever was the nature of this relation, the Logos was 
the medium of revelation. The theophanies granted 
to the patriarchs were appearances of the Logos.? Still 
more, it was the Logos who spoke through the prophets. 
On this latter point, indeed, Justin’s expressions vary. 
He commonly says that the prophetic or Holy Spirit 

1 Cf. Ap. i. 5, 46; ii. 8, 18. 
2 Ap. i. 63; Dial. 55, etc. 


PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 155. 


spoke through the prophets. But he also speaks of the 
prophets as inspired by the divine Logos ;! and while 
we do not think that Justin meant to deny the person- 
ality of the Spirit,? and while he doubtless regarded the 
Spirit as the organ of the Logos, yet the activity of 
the latter was to him the fundamental fact, and quite 
threw into the background the work of the Spirit.2 But 
more widely still does he teach that the Logos he seminal 
operates. He regards Him as active every- 16° 

where, and as having been always present in all na- 
tions revealing the truth to receptive minds. Of Him 
“every race partakes.”* Through Socrates He con- 
demned the errors of the Greek religion.® The Stoic 
ethics were admirable because of the seed of the Logos 
which is implanted in every race of men. God teaches 
men generally through the Logos to imitate Him.’ 
“Whatever philosophers and lawgivers said or dis- 
covered well was done by them through a partial dis- 
covery and contemplation of Reason; but since they did 
not recognize all the teachings of the Reason,’ who 
is Christ, they often contradicted each other.”® Each 
philosopher, seeing from a portion of the seminal divine 
Logos what was congenial to it, spoke well; for through 
the sowing of the implanted Logos which was in them, 
all such writers were able dimly to see the realities.1° 
This doctrine of the seminal Logos, or Reason," is the 
one most characteristic of Justin. The term itself was 


1 Ap. i. 33, 36. 
2 Cf. Ap. i. 6, 39, 60, 61, 65. On the other hand, cf. Aubé’s 
Saint Justin, pp. 141, ete. 


3 Cf. Lect. VI. 4 Ap. i. 46. 

5 Ap. i. 5. 6 Ap. ii. 8. 

7 Ap. i9: 8 τὰ τοῦ λόγου. 
® Ap. ii. 10. 10) Ap. 11. 18. 


11 λόγος σπερματικὸς. 


156 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


of Stoical origin, but had been adopted by Philo to 
designate the copies of the archetypal ideas which ex- 
ist in the world and, according to him, constitute its 
reality, — portions, that is, of the manifested Reason 
of God? Justin uses the term in his own way. The 
“seed of the Logos” means with him the rational ap- 
prehension of truth. He calls it a “seed” or “sowing,” 
because it was but a partial or dim apprehension, yet 
was capable of germinating into the full truth, namely, 
Christianity. The Logos, being everywhere diffused 
and active, Justin calls “seminal,” because He imparts 
these seeds of truth, and because, as apprehended by 
philosophers and others, He was the formative prin- 
ciple of right knowledge and right living. But, thus 
modified, the doctrine was to our author the link which 
united Christianity with all that was good and true in 
human thought; so that he could claim that it was not 
a novelty, but rather the perfect revelation of what had 
previously been known in scattered fragments. 

III. When, then, we inquire of our author why men 
had apprehended so little of the Logos, and had so gen- 
Ut. Iuctinrs CT@ly failed to follow the teaching of divine 

- Justin’s Ε 
anthropol- Reason, we not only discover the weakest 
“ἜΣ point in Justin’s theology, but perceive still 
more clearly how much his philosophical premises led 
him to differ from the teaching of the New Testament. 

He declares not only that man was created intelligent 
and with power to choose the true and do the good’ 
but that he still retains the same ability.* Each man 


1 Zeller’s Outlines of Greek Philosophy, p. 241. 

2 λόγος mpodopixds. Cf. Uberweg’s History of Philosophy, i. 
230. 

8 Ap. i. 28; Dial. 88,141. αὐτεξουσίους πρὸς δικαιοπραξίαν. 

4 Ap. i. 10. 


PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 157 


by his own free choice does right or wrong. Men are 
responsible because they have the power to 4.011 treo. 
choose.2 If they had it not, they could be dom and 
neither rewarded nor punished; and the fact aoa 
that they do change from evil to good, and from good 
to evil, proves that they have the power.? Justin was 
arguing against fatalism; but he goes so far to the other 
extreme that he fails to recognize any responsibility 
unless founded on full individual ability, and represents 
man’s moral choice as the unassisted work of each in- 
dividual. Men, he says, have been endowed with ra- 
tional faculties in which the power of free choice is 
included ;* and the condition of salvation has always 
been the apprehension and imitation of God,’ or the 
living according to reason.6 To inborn depravity there 
is barely the slightest allusion,’ and of a universal guilt 
he says nothing. Adam’s transgression is indeed spoken 
of as marking the origin of human sin and death, but 
apparently as the beginning rather than as the cause of 
it. “Since Adam,® the race has fallen under death and 
the deceit of the serpent, each man having done evil 
through his own fault.”® Being made like to Adam 
and Eve, men work out death for themselves, and each 
by his own fault is what he will appear to be at last.1° 
Men differ, it is true, in their power to receive the truth 
from the Logos, and Justin speaks with particular em- 


1 Ap. ii. 7. 2 Ap. ii. 7, 14. 
SAD iIEAs® 11: ἢ: 4 Ap. i. 10, 43. 
SVAN. 510: 11.’ Ὁ. Δ: 8. Dial. 28: 


1 
6 Ap. i. 5, 46: Dial. 141. 
7 Ap. i. 10, where he says the demons have as their ally τὴν 
ἐν ἐκάστῳ κακὴν πρὸς πάντα Kat ποικίλην φύσει ἐπιθυμίαν. 
8 ἀπὸ τοῦ ᾿Αδὰμ. 
® Dial. 88. παρὰ τὴν ἰδίαν αἰτιὰν. Cf. also Dial. 100. 
10 Dial, 124, 140, 141. 1 Ap. 11. 18. κατὰ δύναμιν. 


158 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


phasis of some who “cannot rise from the earth,” and 
are therefore easy victims of the demons! But these 
are individual variations. Of a guilty world, of sin as 
destroying man’s ability to please God, he says nothing. 
The possession of reason, on the contrary, involves the 
power of moral choice ; and since reason is possessed by 
all men, all men stand or fall according to their indi- 
vidual conduct.? 

What, then, was the origin of human wickedness 
and hostility to the truth? Justin rephes that it was 
pa eat caused by the power of the evil angels, and 
originated their offspring, the demons. He is the first 
ai of the Church Fathers to.accept the legend, 
founded on Gen. vi. 1, 2, of the union of the angels 
who had been placed by God over the world with the 
daughters of men.2 These fallen angels and demons 


1 Ap. i. 58. ZA UT LO: 

8 Ap. ii. 6. This interpretation of Genesis had been adopted 
by the Alexandrian Jews. Philo found in it another point of 
connection between Judaism and heathenism. It is elaborated in 
the apocryphal book of Enoch, and is represented in some of the 
manuscripts of the LXX. Cf. Commentaries on Gen. vi.; also 
Lenormant’s Les Origines de l’histoire, ch. vii. The legend natu- 
rally accorded with Justin’s desire to show analogies between 
Christian and heathen traditions, as well as with his recognition 
of the at least partly historical character of the latter. More- 
over, as Aubé (Saint Justin, 111. ch. vii.) shows, pagan philosophy 
made belief in δαίμονες very prominent. Justin coincides with 
this belief, but makes the demons wicked because opposed to 
Christ. He believes also in good angels (Ap. i. 6), but says lit- 
tle of them, since the Logos occupies his thought as mediator 
between God and man. Aubé is certainly wrong in making de- 
monology to have passed to the Christians from the Persians. 
The form in which it appears in Justin came to the Christians 
from the Alexandrian Jews, and was confirmed by the popular 
paganism; but Christ and the Apostles taught the reality of evil 
spirits, and declared them to be the great foes of the Gospel. It 


PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 159 


appeared to men, overcame them with fear, subdued 
them by magical writings, taught them to offer sacri- 
fices, blinded Reason by terror, and were adored by the 
people, and sung by the poets, as gods.1 The demons 
thus originated polytheism, and have ever waged war 
against Reason, or the Logos. Having learned from the 
prophets of the coming Christ, they taught to their 
followers stories, and themselves performed deeds in 
imitation of what the Christ would do. Hence the anal- 
ogies between Christianity and paganism.? Hence, too, 
their hostility to the Christians, which they expressed 
by raising impostors and heretics, and by fomenting 
persecution* Had it not been for them, the Logos 
would have restrained men from evil;® and the utter 
unreasonableness of the way in which Christians are 
treated proves the demoniacal origin of persecution.® 
To Justin, therefore, the world of spirits was very real. 
He considered the stories of the poets largely historical, 
and referring to actual apparitions from the spirit- 
world.” At any rate, polytheism was the product of the 
demons. He appeals to frequent exorcisms of demons 
by Christians, as proof of the truth of Christianity? 


is noteworthy that the Clem. Recogg. (i. 19) interpret “the sons 
of God” as “righteous men who had lived the life of angels,” 
thus showing what the Ebionite view was; though the Homilies 
(viii. 13) represent them as angels in human form. Both Rec- 
ognitions and Homilies also make the offspring “giants,” not 
“demons.” 

SPA perladisitie ΤΣ 

2 Ap.i. 5, 12, 14, 21, 28, 25, 56, 57, 58; ii. 7, 9, 18; Dial. 
79, 83. 


Ap. i. 23, 26. 4 Ap. i. 50, 57, 58; ii. 13. 
5 Ap. i. 10. δ ΠΑ missy 19]; 11: 1. 
2 Ap, 1: δ, 8 Ap. i. 23, 54, 64; ii. 5, 10. 


9 Ap. ii. 6, 8; Dial. 30, 76,85. In Ap. i. 18, he speaks of the 
popular belief that souls of the dead took possession of men, and 


160 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


But at the same time the dominion of the demons is 
Their domin. _TePresented as due to the terror caused by 
ΤΑ α ποίοξι their appearances, to the blinding of reason 
andigno- | by passion at their suggestion, and to man’s 
ae ignorance of the real nature of the supposed 
godst And hence reason can break the fetters which 
the demons have imposed. If all knew the truth, none 
would choose wickedness.2 In short, the evil under 
which humanity suffers is not inherited guilt, or cor- 
ruption, but ignorance and fear. 

It must thus, we think, be again manifest that Jus- 
tin’s conceptions of human freedom and need were 
determined by his conception of the Logos as reason. 
His view of man is essentially that to which a ration- 
alizing theology usually comes. It thus, again, testifies 
that the influences which modified Justin’s Christi- 
anity were philosophical. Even his demonology, un- 
philosophical as it appears to modern eyes, was in his 
age shared in various forms by writers of nearly all 
schools.® 

IV. With, then, these premises in his mind, it was 
inevitable that Justin would represent Christianity in a 
correspondingly defective and one-sided way. To him 


he apparently shared in this belief himself; but probably he re- 
garded these souls as themselves under the power of demons. 
Cf. Kaye’s Justin Martyr, p. 111. In Dial. 105, he says that in 
ancient times the souls of the prophets and the righteous fell at 
death under the dominion of evil angels, but that Christians are 
delivered from such. The righteous ancients, however, will be 
saved through Christ in the resurrection (Dial. 45). Christ went 
to Hades, but did not remain there (Dial. 99); but of His then 
delivering the Hebrew saints, Justin says nothing. Apparently 
they were not to be delivered until the resurrection. Cf., on the 
contrary, Ignatius ad Mag. ix. 

1 Alp. 1: δ; 1]. Ὁ. 2 Ap. i. 12. 

8 Aubé’s Saint Justin, pp. 224, ete. 


PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 161 


the grand fact of Christianity was the incarnation of 
the divine Logos. In a real incarnation he jy 5.4.4, 
most positively believed The Logos who opera 
had previously appeared to the patriarchs, tion ot Obris 
and spoken through the prophets, and been ere 
partially known to all mankind, had voluntarily? and 
according to the will of the Father® become incarnate 
in the Virgin Mary. The whole Logos had thus re- 
vealed himself.t The full manifestation of truth, there- 
fore, had at last been made. 

Consequently the object of Christ’s coming was, in 
Justin’s thought, primarily to teach. This, indeed, was 
not its only object. He came to destroy the christ’s 
power of the demons.® By dying and rising, ee 
He conquered death By His suffering He teach. 
saves us.’ By His blood He cleanses believers’ He 
endured all things for our sakes® and on account of 
our sins.!° God has mercy, through the mystery of Him 
that was crucified, on all races of believing men By 
His blood He bought us.“ But while these and similar 
expressions are frequent, the greatest stress is laid by 
Justin on Christ as a teacher. Becoming man, He 
taught us for the conversion and restoration of the 
human race.®= Our teacher is Jesus Christ, who was 


1 Ap. i. 5, 23, 32, 33, 63, 66; ii. 6, 10, 13; Dial. 34, 43, 45, 48, 
54, 68, 64, 66, 68, 75, 84, 88, 98, 99, 100, 103, 105, 113. 


2 Ap. i. 33; Dial. 88. SWAT. 29; ἀπ 6. 

4. Ap. ii. 10. 5 Ap. i. 46; ii. 6; Dial. 91, 131. 

6 Ap. i. 63. 7 Dial. ΤΆ. 

8 Ap. i. 32; Dial. 13, 40, 54. 

9 Ap. i. 50, 70, 103. 19 Dial. 63. 

11 Dial. 105. 

15 Dial. 134. 60 αἵματος καὶ μυστηρίου τοῦ σταυροῦ κτησάμενος 
αὐτοίς. 

18 Ap. i. 23. 


11 


162 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


born for this very purpose. He is the true lawgiver? 
and law,? and Christianity is therefore the complete 
revelation of truth. While previous “ writers were able 
to see realities darkly through the sowing of the im- 
planted Logos,” Christians possess the participation 4 
and active imitation® of the Logos Himself, according 
to the grace which is from Him.® 

Moreover, expressions which apparently belonged to 
another type of theology are often rationalized by 
Justin into harmony with his own mode of thought. 
When he says? that “Christ through sharing our suf- 
fering brings us healing,” the context makes it clear 
that this healing was conceived of by Justin as the 
correction of our errors through giving us the truth. 
When he says® that “God persuades and leads us to 
faith,” he seems again, from the context, to refer not 
to the work of the Spirit in the heart, but to the exhor- 
tations and revelations of the Logos made externally to 
us. The clean raiment of the saints is not the robe of 
imputed righteousness, but the future reward with which 
we shall be invested if we do His commandments? If 
he quotes 19 the Psalm, “ Blessed is the man to whom 
the Lord imputeth not sin,” he also understands" the 
remission of sin to be received in baptism, and to 
include only the sins previously committed So, too, 


1 Ap.i.13. Socf. Ap. i. 14, 22, 32; ii. 2, 8,10, 13; Dial. 8, 9, 
11, 76, 83, 100, 102, 113, 116, 121. 

2 Dial. 11, 12, 14, 18. 8 Dial. 11, 43. 

4 μετουσία. 

5 μίμησις, opposed to μίμημα, which the heathen had. 


6 Ap. ii. 13; cf. i. 20. 7 Ap. ii. 13. 
8 Ap. i. 10. 9. Dial. 116. 
10 Dial. 141. 11 Ap. i. 61. 


12 Cf. also Thoma’s article in the Zeitschr. fiir wissensch. Theol., 
xviii. 383, etc. He proves Justin’s use of Paul's epistles, but 


PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 163 


Christ’s power is chiefly represented as consisting in 
His mighty word Justin certainly believed that 
Christ by His death and resurrection had won a vic- 
tory, in which His people are to share, over the evil 
spirits and over death. He believed also that Christ 
is a King, and actually reigning in the unseen world.? 
But in spite of such expressions the manifest tendency 
of his thought was to find the real centre of Chris- 
tianity in its being the revelation of truth, and its 
power in the power of truth. 

This tendency affected, finally, his idea of salvation 
itself. He commonly represents it as future. The Chris- 
tian 15 not so much a saved man as One τῆς idea of 
who hopes to be saved through belief in ‘#!vation. 
Christ’s teaching, baptism for the remission of past sins, 
and subsequent obedience.? Faith is belief in the truth 
of Christ’s word rather than the acceptance of a finished 
redemption; and with it not merely repentance but 


contends that he rationalizes their thought. We admit his proof, 
though we think that he points out many resemblances which are 
doubtful; but we think that he gives the wrong reason for Jus- 
tin’s modifications of Pauline doctrine. Cf. Lectt. III. and VI. 
The passage (Dial. 95, 96) where Justin explains the sentence 
“Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree ” as fulfilled when 
the Jews cursed Christ, and as not meaning that Christ was 
eursed by God, is no rationalizing of the Pauline doctrine, for 
Justin teaches the same doctrine himself in the same passage 
(“ The Father caused him to suffer these things in behalf of the 
human family”), but was due to Justin’s desire to meet an obvi- 
ous Jewish misapplication of the phrase. At the same time his 
explanation harmonizes with his disposition to find external items 
of the fulfilment of prophecy, and with his inability really to 
appreciate the Hebrew economy. 

1 Dial. 102, 113, 121; Ap. ii. 10. 

2 Ap. i. 40-42, 45, 51; Dial. 36, 74. 

8 Ap. i. 8, 10, 14, 42, 65; ii. 1, 2; Dial. 35, 44, 53, 92, 100, 111, 
116. 


164 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


obedience is joined as the condition of obtaining the 
future reward! Most notably does this appear in Jus- 
tin’s account of the sacraments: “As many as are 
persuaded and believe that what we teach is true, and 
undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to 
pray and to entreat God, with fasting, for the remission 
of their sins that are past. Then they are brought by 
us where there is water, and are regenerated? in the 
same manner in which we ourselves were.”® The 
“jllumination”+ of those who learned the Christian 
doctrines was evidently the sense in which they were 
“made new through Christ.”® Then, “after we have 
thus washed him who has been convinced and has 
assented to our teaching, we bring him to the place 
where the brethren are assembled, that we may offer 
prayers, . . . that we may be counted worthy, now that 
we have learned the truth, by our works also to be 
found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, 
so that we may be saved with an everlasting salva- 
tion.”® Making allowance for Justin’s evident effort to 
represent the Christian doctrines and ceremonies in the 
way most likely to commend them to his pagan readers, 
we yet cannot but see that his whole idea of the way of 
salvation was strongly affected by what we may fairly 
term his rationalistic tendency. To be sure, as has been 
already said, expressions can be quoted which seem 
quite inconsistent with his prevailing theory. Of this 
side of his theology we shall speak hereafter;’ but 


1 Ap. i. 8,19, 28, 32,65, 66; ii. 1,4, 8, 12; Dial. 13, 15, 28, 41, 
44, 47, 129. 

2 ἀναγεννῶνται. Cf. Lect. VI. 

3 Ap.i. 61. 4 φωτισμός. 

5 καινοποιηθέντες διὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ. 6 Ap. i. 65. 


INC Ewe δον: 


PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 165 


our very point is that he was thus inconsistent in his 
presentation of Christianity. Two elements coexist in 
his language, but the dominating traits of his theology 
were as we have stated. These were the channels into 
which his own thought ran. These were the utterances 
of his real intellectual self. And these all followed 
from the fundamental conception of the Logos as the 
Reason of God mediating between transcendent Deity 
and the created universe, and the kindred philosophical 
premises with which Justin approached Christianity. 


As now we review these features of Justin’s theology, 
several inferences bearing on the history of 
early Christianity seem to be warranted. 

(1) The first is that Justin’s theology evidently con- 
tained two elements which did not entirely harmonize. 
One was the philosophical element, which we (1) justin’s 
have studied. We recognize it as a well- theology con- 
known type of speculation. We see in it the elements. 
influence on early Christianity of the mixed philosophi- 
cal systems of that day, and particularly of Platonism 
and Jewish Alexandrianism. Justin is not the first 
orthodox Christian writer who betrays these influences. 
The prologue of the Fourth Gospel implies their exist- 
ence in the churches of Asia at the end of the first 
century, though we hold that it was not their product. 
The so-called Epistle of Barnabas contains Alexandrian 
elements, though it does not enter the region of theology 
proper. But in Justin these philosophical influences 
appear in full vigor, as we have found both his exegesis 
and his theology to testify. By what road they entered 
into combination with Gentile Christianity is, amid the 
paucity of evidence, a difficult question to answer. 
Doubtless the more liberal Hellenistic Jews, who freely 


We infer: 


166 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


united at their conversion with Gentile churches, were 
the principal means of the combination; while, as 
regards Justin himself, we know that he wrote against 
the Valentinian and Basilidean heresies, and so must 
have become acquainted with other forms of Egyptian 
speculation. We have found reason, also, to infer 
that he was acquainted with the writings of Philo or 
the teaching of that school. He does not, however, 
write like a man who was consciously introducing noy- 
elties into Christian thought;! and while his own 
studies may have augmented the influence of phi- 
losophy upon him, the same influence was clearly at 
work quite widely in the Church. However we may 
explain the means of contact, the fact is certain that 
this philosophical element, which even in its Alexan- 
drian form was quite a different force from the attach- 
ment of Jewish Christianity to historical Judaism, had 
entered to modify the faith of the Church. But whence 
did Justin obtain the other element of his theology ? 
It was certainly not the product of philosophy, for to 
explain it was the very object of his philosophizing. 
It must have preceded in Christianity the philosophical 
tendency. It was, therefore, the genuinely Christian 
element; it was the belief of the Church handed down 
from a previous age. Hence Justin, together with the 
whole philosophical movement in the early Church to 
which he belonged, testifies, by his manifest effort to 
explain Christian doctrine philosophically, to the previ- 
ous existence of the non-philosophical beliefs of which 
he affords us a sight as the original faith of the 
Christian Church. 

(2) But, furthermore, the tendency of Justin’s the- 
ology provides, we think, the key to the modifications 

1 Cf. Lect. VI. 


PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 167 


of Pauline, or, to speak correctly, of apostolic doctrine 
in the second century. Justin came, as we (2) Philoso- 
have seen, to a legalistic theology through phy modified 
the influence, not of Judaism, but of philoso- sion of Chris- 
phy. He renders it, therefore, highly proba- "*"™” 

ble that the forces which operated to change apostolic 
doctrine were derived from paganism. We do not mean, 
of course, that the influences betrayed by him were the 
only ones in operation. He is only an illustration of 
his times, but, we think, a typical one. But we may 
infer from him that the habits of thought which the 
Gentiles brought into the Church are sufficient to 
explain the corruptions of apostolic doctrine which 
began in the post-apostolic age. Legalism is not a 
peculiarly Jewish thing. Natural religion is legalistic ; 
and when the vast majority of the Church became com- 
posed of converted heathen, their very inability to ap- 
preciate the real worth of the Hebrew economy —an 
inability which, as we have seen, Justin shared — 
would tend to blunt their perception of the difference 
between “law” and “grace,” which in the apostolic age 
was so strongly felt. That the prevalent view of the 
Old Testament as a book of perfect Christian doctrine 
aided this tendency, and also helped to impose a hier- 
archy on the Church, may be admitted. That Alexan- 
drian Judaism, with its philosophical, rationalizing 
spirit, affected the post-apostolic church, is certain; but 
Alexandrian Judaism, so far at least as it affected 
Christianity, is to be reckoned a Gentile rather than a 
Jewish influence. The phenomena, therefore, do not 
require us to suppose a blending of anti-Jewish and 
Jewish Christianity, nor that the latter, as a type of 
Christian life, came to exert a controlling influence 
on the former. On the contrary, pagan thought, the 


168 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


political and speculative ideas of the day, the new 
circumstances which called for stress to be laid on 
Christian morals in opposition to heathen manners, — 
these and similar causes may be most probably assigned 
as the real causes of the failure of the second century 
to carry on the complete doctrinal ideas of the first. 
Nothing was more natural than this. To say nothing 
of inspiration, the training of the Apostles in the 
Hebrew system must have led them to definitions of 
religious truth which Gentile converts, wholly without 
these inherited ideas, could only slowly and partly ap- 
preciate. It was when the apostolic age ended that 
the development of Christian thought toward the apos- 
tolic standard and fulness began; and the superiority 
of the teaching of the Apostles appears most plain when 
we observe the fall to a lower and fragmentary appre- 
heusion of it which immediately followed. Justin, we 
think, testifies most clearly to the direction in which 
we are to look for the causes which modified original 
Christianity in the succeeding period. 
(3) Finally, it is impossible not to see exemplified in 
Justin the fact that Christianity was and is not only a 
gospel for the lost, but also the practical 
Oe realization of the unattained ideals and un- 
Ta κα θα οΣ satisfied longings of the human soul. Human- 
rationsof ity had failed really to find God, and to reach 
paganism. ὃ E - ἢ 
the social righteousness and inward peace of 
which it so sorely felt the need. But humanity had at 
least discovered that its need was God, and had learned 
to distrust its ability to find Him. If in Seneca and 
Epictetus, in Plutarch and Maximus of Tyre, we read 
sentiments which seem almost Christian, we are to infer 
that the dawn of a better day was drawing near, and 
these exceptional spirits were like high mountain-peaks 


PHILOSOPHY AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY. 169 


which catch the first glow from the rising sun. It is 
very certain, indeed, that Christianity was not the pro- 
duct of the forces which moulded them, save in that 
larger sense which Justin crudely taught when he 
spake of the Logos of which all men partake. Justin, 
as we have seen, implies the already established belief 
in the Church of those doctrines which his philosophy 
strove to understand and explain; and as we shall see 
hereafter, those beliefs originated among the Christians 
in the apostolic age itself. But while the spiritual side 
of paganism did not aid in the creation of Christianity, 
the latter was the satisfaction of the hitherto unsatis- 
fied needs of paganism, and is thus witnessed by Justin 
as the truth for which a thinking moral world as 
well as a guilty lost world was unconsciously waiting. 
Certainly the path by which Justin came to the new 
religion was trodden by others; and if these Gentile 
believers sometimes brought error into Christianity, 
they also discovered in it the divine light whose dim 
reflections and broken gleams had already awakened, 
but had failed to satisfy, their loftiest and purest 
thoughts. 


LECTURE V. 


THE TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN TO THE NEW 
TESTAMENT, 


8Ὲ next phase of Justin’s testimony which de- 

mands our attention is its bearing upon the New 
cay: Testament. Standing, as he does, midway in 
sitionjmakes the second century; describing the customs 
portant wit- and defending the beliefs of the Christians ; 
ἘΠῚ Ἢ speaking for the Roman Church, which was 
ments itself the best mirror of the whole Christian 
community, yet also acquainted by travel with the 
churches of other cities ; the first post-apostolic author 
whose writings are of any considerable size, — Justin 
is naturally a witness of first importance on this most 
important subject. 

It is generally admitted that at the close of the 
second century our four Gospels and nearly all the 
The prob- | Temaining books of the New Testament were 
dem. universally regarded by the Church as apos- 
tolic and authoritative, and were placed on a level with 
the sacred scriptures of the Old Testament Was this 
a new opinion? Had there been a fusion of originally 
antagonistic parties into a Catholic Church, and a cor- 
responding blending of their respective literatures into 
one sacred collection? Are any of these books un- 
authentic, and did the reception of them as authentic 

1 Cf. Reuss’s History of the Canon, pp. 103-116; Westcott’s 
Canon of the New Testament, pp. 303, etc. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 171 


grow out of a mistaken view of the real course of 
apostolic history? Or can we find evidence of the 
existence and recognized authority of these books at a 
much earlier period, so as to be warranted in concluding 
that the opinion which prevailed at the close of the 
second century had always been the substantial opinion 
of the Church? Did Christian life and thought in the 
second half of the second century lay in order the 
foundations of the Church out of the stones which a 
previous age, animated by quite different ideas, had 
quarried and cast in confusion on the ground; or did it 
build upon a foundation already laid by apostles and 
apostolic men? For the answer to this question we 
eagerly interrogate Justin. Does he show that in his 
day other Gospels than our four were used, either in 
such wise as to indicate that our four were not known 
at all, or, if known and used, were held to be no more 
authoritative than others? Did he recognize the apos- 
tolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel? More widely 
still, did he recognize the authority of apostles, and 
does he testify to the existence of a sacred Christian 
literature comparable with the Old Testament? It is 
manifestly of the utmost value to examine accurately 
and interpret fairly his testimony upon these points. 
This phase of Justin’s testimony, however, and es- 
pecially the question whether he used our Synoptic 
Gospels, has been that which has in modern times 
attracted the most attention. Justin refers frequently 
to certain books, which he describes as “ memoirs of the 
Apostles,” but which, he says, were “called Gospels,” 1 
and were read in the weekly assembly of the Christians 
interchangeably with “the prophets,’? and from which 
he adduces events of Christ’s life and examples of His 


1 Ap. i. 66. 2 Ap. i. 67. 


172 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


teaching; and the question of the identity of these 
books with our Gospels has been one of the great crit- 
ical battles of the present century. The identity had 
Modern criti: Previously been denied by several writers ;! 
cism but Eichhorn, in 1794, was the first to give 
wide currency to the denial. He maintained that our 
Synoptics were secondary recensions of an original Ara- 
maic Gospel, and that Justin’s quotations are from a 
previous recension of the same.2 Similar views were 
introduced about the same time into England by Bishop 
Marsh ;* while, in Germany, Paulus and others sought 
to solve the problem by maintaining that Justin took 
his citations from a harmony of at least Mark and 
Luke.* Interest in the question increased after the 
publication, in 1832, of Credner’s “ Essays,”® in which 
he held that while Justin knew our Gospels, he used 
chiefly the “Gospel of Peter,’ a reference to which 
Credner claimed to find in the Dialooue® The new 
views were answered by Bindemann’ and Semisch® in 
Germany, and by Bishop Kaye® in England; but the 

1 Cf. Norton’s Genuineness of the Gospels, p. 2, referring to 
Bolingbroke. In 1777 Stroth maintained that Justin’s citations 
were from the Gospel according to the Hebrews (cf. Weiss’s 
Einleitung in das N. T., p. 41). 

2 Cf. his “ Allgemeine Bibliothek d. bibl. Lit.,” 1794, quoted in 
Credner’s Einleitung (1836), p. 176; also Kichhorn’s later “ Ein- 
leitung.” 

8 Marsh’s Michaelis, 1795. Cf. Kaye’s Justin Martyr, in reply. 

4 Paulus was among the first to maintain that the Gospels were 
based on oral tradition; while Gratz simplified Eichhorn’s theory 
of an original written Gospel (Credner’s Einleitung, pp. 177, 
178). 

5 Beitrage zur Einleit. in ἃ. bibl. Schrr., 1832. 

ὁ Cf. below. 

7 Studien und Kritiken, 1842. 

8 Die apostol. Denkwiirdigkeiten des M. J., 1848. 

® Justin Martyr, 1853, 3d ed. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 173 


subject was so intimately involved with the theories of 
the Tiibingen school of criticism, according to which the 
Gospels were written in the interest of certain “ ten- 
dencies” the operation of which was alleged to have 
extended far into the second century, that after the ap- 
pearance of that school the controversy became sharper 
than ever. Baur himself merely remarks that while Jus- 
tin was acquainted with one or more of our Gospels, he 
has named none of them ;! but Schwegler? denied that 
Justin knew our Gospels at all, alleging that he used 
only the Gospel of Peter, which Schwegler identified 
with the Gospel according to the Hebrews. More mod- 
erate views, however, began in time to prevail. It was 
generally admitted that Justin knew our Synoptics, and 
only the question remained whether he had also used 
one or more extra-canonical Gospels, and if so, whether 
he had relied on them chiefly or merely incidentally. 
Hilgenfeld, while maintaining Justin’s principal use of 
the Gospel according to Peter, recognized his use also 
of the canonical Gospels, and has reproved ? the author 
of “Supernatural Religion” for denying the fact. On 
the other hand, Bleek,* to take an example from the 
more conservative writers, declared that “Justin meant 
by ‘the memoirs’ our Gospels, two of which he used, 
but that we still find him to have had recourse to an- 
other evangelic history, probably the Gospel according to 
the Hebrews.” In England, Dr. Sanday ὅ has defended 
Justin’s use of the canonical Gospels, against the de- 
nials of the author of “Supernatural Religion,” though 

1 Christian Church of the First Three Centuries, Eng. trans., 
i. 147. 

2 Nachapost. Zeitalter, 1846. 

8 Zeitschr. fiir wissensch. Theol., 1875, p. 584. 


4 Introd. to New Test., T. & T. Clark, 1861, i. 335; ii. 240. 
5 Gospels in the Second Century, 1876. 


174. JUSTIN MARTYR. 


still inclined to think that he also followed an ex- 
tra-canonical source; while Westcott! holds that the 
canonical Gospels alone, together with oral tradition, 
supphed Justin with his knowledge of the evangelic 
history. Finally, it has been suggested that the prob- 
lem of Justin’s quotations may be solved by supposing 
him to have used a Gospel harmony. Long since, as 
we have stated, Paulus advanced this view, alleging 
Justin’s harmony to have been formed from Mark and 
' Luke. Credner, also, in his “History of the Canon,” 2 
supposed that the Gospel of Peter was a harmony of 
evangelic sources, with apocryphal additions; and Von 
Engelhardt ὃ now maintains not only that Justin used 
a harmony, but that this was none other than a har- 
mony based on our Synoptics themselves. 

Justin’s quotations from the “memoirs” have thus 
been intimately connected with the larger questions of 
the origin and mutual relations of the Gospels, and of 
the rise of the Catholic Church itself; and the approxi- 
mate solution of the difficulties suggested by earlier 
criticism concerning his quotations has contributed 
much to the overthrow of the rationalistic theories of 
early Christianity. So much, however, has been written 
in accessible books upon this part of my subject, that, 
in view of the limits of a single lecture within which I 
am confined, I shall discuss, as briefly as possible, Jus- 
tin’s testimony to the first three Gospels, in order to 
obtain space to notice his testimony to the Fourth Gos- 
pel,—the discussion of which has lately assumed an 
interesting phase, —and his testimony to the way in 


1 Canon of the New Test., 1855, pp. 66-70. 2 1852. 

3 Das Christenthum Justins, p. 345. 

4 Sanday also (Gospels in the Second Century, p. 136, note) 
thinks the hypothesis of a harmony plausible. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 175 


which apostolic literature, in part or in whole, was 
regarded by the Church of his age. 

I. The data by which Justin’s relation to 1, Justin's 
our Synoptic Gospels must be determined Rear 
are, then, briefly as follows :— Gospels. 

Once in the longer Apology, and seven times in the 
Dialogue, he mentions the “memoirs of the, or of His, 
Apostles.”! Four times, in the Dialogue, he he «me- 
speaks simply of “the memoirs.”2 Elsewhere ™"S-” 
he uses other expressions descriptive of the character 
or origin of these books. Speaking of the Annunciation 
to the Virgin, he says: “As those who related all things 
concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ taught.”® Again: 
“The Apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which 
are called Gospels, thus handed down.”* Again: “The 
Apostles wrote® that the Holy Spirit as a dove flew 
upon” Jesus after His baptism.® Still again: “In the 
memoirs which I say were composed by His Apostles 
and those who followed them.”” Finally, speaking of 
the change of Simon’s name to Peter, Justin says, “It 
is written in his memoirs that it so happened,’® by 
which, if the text be correct, we must understand 
“Peter's memoirs.” This term, “the memoirs,” was a 
descriptive one. Justin is the only writer known to 

1 Ap. i. 67; Dial. 100-104, 106 (twice). τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα 

τῶν ἀποστόλων. 

2 Dial. 105 (three times), 107. 

8 Ap.i. 33. ὡς of ἀπομνημονεύσαντες πάντα τὰ περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος 
ἡμῶν Ἶ. Χ. ἐδίδαξαν. 

4 Αρ.1. 66. οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀπομνη- 
μονεύμασιν, ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια, οὕτως περέδωκαν κ.τ.λ. 

5 ἔγραψαν. 8. Dial. 88. 

7 Dial. 108. ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν ἅ φημι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων 
αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκείνοις παρακολουθησάντων συντετάχθαι. 

8. Dial. 106. γεγράφθαι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν αὐτοῦ γεγενη- 
μένον καὶ τοῦτο. 


176 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


have applied it to the evangelic narratives, though the 
corresponding verb was used by Papias to describe the 
composition of Mark’s Gospel;! and Tatian, Justin’s 
pupil, appears to have been familiar with his master’s 
terminology.2, Most probably Justin took the phrase 
from the well-known “Memoirs” of Xenophon,’ which 
he quotes in his Apologies, and the resemblance be- 
tween which and the Gospels must have impressed his 
own mind, in view of his frequent comparison of Soc- 
rates with Christ. The term, also, would well describe 
to his pagan readers what these Christian narratives 
really were.® If so, then we may assume that the term 
“Gospels” was the usual one employed by the Chris- 
tians themselves. Justin says, “the memoirs, which 
are called Gospels.”® The latter term was 
evidently well established; and its use by 
Justin is the more noteworthy because the plural, 
“Gospels,” is not found, with probably one exception, 


“* Gospels.”’ 


1 Eus. H. E. iii. 39. Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος 
ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν... ὥστε οὐδὲν ἥμαρτε Μάρκος 
οὕτως ἔνια γράψας ὡς ἀπομνημόνευσεν. Cf. too Clem. Recog. ii. 1, 
where Peter says: “In consuetudine habui, verba Domini mei, 
que ab ipso audieram, revocare in memoriam.” ‘The term is 
also used by Eusebius (H. E. v. 8; vi. 25), though not of the 
Gospels. 

2 Orat. ad Gree. 21, where he bids the Greeks look at their 
OWN ἀπομνημονεύματα, apparently in contrast to those of the Chris- 
tians. Cf. Von Engelhardt’s Das Christenthum, etc., p. 337. Von 
Engelhardt, however, is not justified in saying (p. 336) that this 
term for the Gospels was widely diffused. 

3 Ξενοφῶντος ᾿Απομνημονεύματα. 

Ἔα 1 ΟΕ ἌΙΞΟ 1. ὃ: ai. LO; 

5 Justin’s use of the term in the Dialogue, as well as in the 
Apology, shows that he did not merely use it for the sake of his 
pagan readers, but that it was his own favorite term. 

$ Ap.i. 66. It is perfectly arbitrary to regard the words as 
spurious. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1717 


in earlier writers. We frequently find, before Justin, 
“the Gospel” spoken of, meaning the Christian revela- 
tion, or message, and gradually having attached to it the 
idea of a written document.! Our Apologist, however, 
testifies that in his day the term was commonly ap- 
plied in the Church to the single written narratives of 
Christ’s life, as it ever since has continued to be. True, 
in the Dialogue, we find the singular also employed. 


1 In the New Testament, we find only the singular, and in the 
sense of the Gospel message or dispensation. In Clem. Rom. ad 
Cor. 47, we read ri πρῶτον ὑμῖν ἐν ἀρχῆ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (Παύλος) 
ἔγραψεν, where there is evident reference to Phil. iv. 15, and εὐαγ. 
is used in both places in the same sense. In Ignatius we find 
only the singular (cf. Philad. 5, 8, 9; Smyr. 5, 7), but, except in 
Phil. 9, with evident consciousness that the Gospel was written 
(cf. Bib. Sacra, July, 1885, “ Descriptive Names applied to N. T. 
Books by Earliest Writers,” B. B. Warfield. Polycarp’s collec- 
tion of Ignatius’s Epistles surely proves also the valuation of 
Christian literature by the earliest churches. If they desired the 
Epistles of Ignatius, much more would they use and collect the 
writings of the Apostles). In the Didache, we find the singular 
four times, —c. 15: “ Reprove one another in peace, ὡς ἔχετε ἐν 
τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ. “Your prayers and alms, etc., so do, ὡς ἔχετε 
ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. c.8: “Do not pray as the 
hypocrites, but ὡς ἐκέλευσεν ὁ κύριος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ, οὕτω 
προσεύχεσθε." Then follows the Lord’s Prayer. 6. 11: “As to 
Apostles and prophets so do, κατὰ τὸ δόγμα τοῦ εὐαγγελίου; and 
let every Apostle coming to you be received as the Lord” (cf. 
Matt. x. 40). These seem to imply a written Gospel, though 
Harnack (sub cap. 15) denies it. In Barnabas we find only the 
singular (v. and viii.), where it means the message given to the 
Apostles to preach. In Hermas the word does not occur, nor in 
the fragments from Papias. In the Epistle to Diognetus, c. xi. 
(where we read εὐαγγελίων πίστις ἵδρυται) is an addition to the 
Epistle. The Epistle itself, however, is probably later than Jus- 
tin. From Hippol. adv. Her. vii. 10, we learn that Basilides 
quoted John i. 9, as τὸ λεγόμενον ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις. If this be, 
as is probable, Basilides’s language, he furnishes the earliest ex- 
ample of the plural, and, be it observed, applies it to the Fourth 
Gospel. 

12 


178 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
Trypho sizes" thet he head “read the presepis im the 
socalled Gaspel;” end Jusim bomself says? ἔδει, “m 
datversd waio me by my Father”” Thus the iom 
“Gospel” wes already commonly used io describe the 
neon Gl Wien memors, 2 well 2 the pariacular 
memos themselves. Im Jusim’s imme its nomenele- 
ture wes ἐπῆν esiablished, preasely as we ind ij τῷ 
Iremens? and all subsequent writers. 
The “memorms of the Aposiles” were, then, several 
evrensehe mamsives beheved to have been “composed 
by apostles τ ther tollowes”* Tos apes a 
Juss, while he dos moi say how many memo 
eS a 
exatily tales wah our four Gospels, ihoush τῷ eamnst 
be used 2s proot ules supported by oiber evidence 
The memes of the authors of the memos he nowhere 
eiwes, Waless im ihe smele msiamce Im which he seems 
to speck of Psters memoms? This was ihe passace on 
winds Credmer besed Is theory thet Jusim used an 
mucenomicel Gospel of Psicer Bui imesmoch 2s ihe 
enhest emigaiy made Merk the imterpreier of Peter, 
ena Wark’s Gospel the rectal of Pster’s preackme ;* 


20 Imasmnch 2 Jusim IDmmeiiziely quotes 2s from the 
3 Dial 18. = Dill 109. 
5 Ads. Heer πῇ A 15 mm 31. 7. * Dil 183. 


= Dial 10%. ae αἱ {δε ae ee 
Pewer, Jasin says, “Δ Ξε writen & sas Erowyewsipers avon 
thet Gins happened” Oc dks αἰτεῖ Ἐπὶ ere io eco oF 
ca ἀξττσπτίδιων cisco Οἴδατε reier acer to Choisi; bot 3 35 
Seca oo Gs det Juste elsewhere uses dhe seniiiwe alter “mes 
mars” fer de authors. 

* So Pape Ere. ΞΞ. Ἐπ 28. παήρεκος μὲν ἔρμηνεντῆρς Depo 
am 2 π΄ 


a ae 


JUSTIN OM THE NEW THSTAWENT. 17? 


game memors am incident * which i now only food ὅπ 
the Gospel of Manik, i is αἰ least equally credible, evem 
so fir as the mere wordime is comcermed, that by Peter's 
memoms, however, were the sources fo winch Jusim@ 
appealed for information as to Chmsi’s Ge Ip tiem 
were related “all thimes concemm@e am Sew Jens 
Cimsti”* To them Jusim ρθε fr acamgks af 
Chimst’s teachime* and for events Gf His Ge* They 
were resularly read im the Chueh, aod commented 
upom by the presidime officer? and were therciare well 
known and generally accepted public documents. Both 
ie παρε ωκυκελραμακηῦς νὰ 
fiom as apostolic marraiives of ἀξ teaching and Ge af 
Jesus. 

We have next to exammme Jusii’s account of Cimsis 
Ife amd teaching, ae Gis Gscused by the Ss xem 
statements scattered through his wets, an = 


= resulis of such am exammnainam? we 


(2) That hes eccound af te ΣΕΙ͂Σ af Cirsé a remartaiiy 
je Weleem from bm Cirsis beth fem the Ve 


ἘΞ The naming of Zebedee’: ems Boanerzes. On tie apuerypill 
Gospel of Peter. see Westeott’s Camom, m 2h aut 2: Fister’s 
The Supervatural Orie af Christianity. p 12h. 

= Spb FX though the sayra need oot be pressed tow ceili. 
50. as ἴω» eselnde, for example, eral teaditiem. Ferfaps. as Wese 
cath summests (Camom. μι. 102, mote 1). Sastim bd im mind Lake i. 
& or Acts i. 1. 

5. CE Ap i 15-27, Ge; Dial. 205, τὰς. 

Ὁ Ami 33; Din 88. τοῦ τῶν, Dom. S Am 5. EZ 

® CE Westeott’s Camom, pm 92-2t: Saminy’s Gospel im Ge 
Seeend Century, pm. 92-98; Charters Canunieity,, ar Smilar 
summaries. 


180 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


gin,! and the events of His infancy ;* His waiting in 
(1) Remark- Obscurity “ until about thirty years of age;”® 
ably full. the mission of John the Baptist,4 together 
with the baptism® and temptation ® of Jesus; the char- 
acteristic features of Christ’s teaching;’ the fact and 
variety of His miracles;® quotations from or references 
to the accounts of the healing of the centurion’s ser- 
vant? and Matthew’s feast;!? the choosing of the 
Twelve; the naming of Zebedee’s sons; the com- 
mission of the Apostles; the discourse after the de- 
parture of John’s messengers ;* the sign of the prophet 
Jonas ; the parable of the Sower;1 the confession 


1 Cf. Ap. i. 21, 22, 32, 33, 46; Dial. 43, 66, 75, 76, 84, 100. 

2 Born under Cyrenius, one hundred and fifty years ago (Ap. 
i. 46); visit of Magi; annunciation to Joseph; journey to Bethle- 
hem at the time of the census; Jesus born in a cave near Beth- 
lehem; laid in a manger, where the Magi found Him; flight to 
Egypt; massacre of the children in Bethlehem by Herod (Dial. 
78, 102); the star of the Magi (Dial. 106); the circumcision 
(Dial. 67). 

8 Dial. 88 (“He grew up like other men, and waited thirty 
years more or less till John appeared”). 

4 John, the last of the Jewish prophets; Matt. iii. 11, 12, 
quoted; John imprisoned and beheaded by Herod (Dial. 49); 
Christ ended John’s ministry (Dial. 51); John, the herald of 
Christ (Dial. 88). 

5 Dial. 88. 8 Dial. 103, 125. 

7 Brief and concise utterances (Ap.i. 14); power of His word, 
by which He confuted the Scribes and Pharisees (Dial. 102). 

8 Dial. 49; Ap. i. 22 (healed the lame and paralytic and blind 
from birth (ἐκ γενετῆς movnpovs; cf. below, p. 185), and raised the 
dead). So Ap. i. 30, 31, 48; Dial. 69. 

9 Dial. 76, 120, 140 (“ Many shall come from the East and 
West,” etc.). 

10 Ap. i. 15 (“I came not to call the righteous,” etc.). 

11 Ap. i. 39; Dial. 42. 12 Dial. 106. 

18 Ap. i. 16, 19, 63; Dial. 35, 82. 

14 Ap. i. 63; Dial. 51, 100, 106. 

1b ial. 107. 16 Dial. 125. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 181 


of Peter;! the announcement of the Passion;? while 
of the later period, and especially the last week of 
Christ’s life, and of the events which immediately fol- 
lowed the resurrection, Justin speaks with still greater 
fulness.2 In fact, we may obtain from him passages 
which correspond in substance to portions of every 
chapter of Matthew’s Gospel, and sometimes to por- 
tions of considerable size;* also to portions of all but 
seven of the chapters of Luke’s Gospel The evidence, 
therefore, upon which to base a comparison of Justin’s 
account of Christ’s life with that of the Synoptists is 
larger than might have been expected, and sufficient to 
yield positive results. 

(2) Now, with the exception of a few items to be men- 
tioned presently, Justin’s account of Christ’s life agrees in 


1 Dial. 100. 2 Dial. 51, 106. 

8. We find references to, or quotations from, the triumphal 
entry (Ap. i. 35; Dial. 53); the second cleansing of the temple 
(Dial. 17, “‘ My house shall be called a house of prayer,” etc.); the 
tribute money (Ap. i. 17); the two commandments (Dial. 93); the 
rebukes of the Pharisees (Dial. 17, 95, 112, 122); the discourse 
on the Mount of Olives (Ap. 1. 16, 28; Dial. 35, 51, 76, 82, 116, 
125); the institution of the Supper (Ap. i. 66); the agony (Dial. 
99,103); the trial before the Sanhedrim (Dial. 103); Christ’s 
silence at His trial (Dial. 102, 103); Pilate’s sending Him to 
Herod (Dial. 103); His crucifixion under Pontius Pilate (Ap. i. 
13, 35; i. 6; Dial. 30, 85); the parting of His garments (Ap. i. 
35; Dial. 97, 103); the mockery of the Jews (Dial. 101); the 
ery on the Cross (Dial. 99); the resurrection on the first day 
of the week (Ap.i. 67; Dial. 41); the report of the Jews that 
Christ’s body was stolen (Dial. 108); His last commission (Ap. i. 
31, Apostles sent to all nations; 61, baptism in the name of the 
Trinity) ; and His ascension (Ap. i. 21). 

4 As, e.g., Matt. ii. 5, 6, 11-23 (Ap. i. 34; Dial. 78, 103); v. 16, 
20, 22, 28, 29, 82, 34, 37, 39, 40-42, 44-46 (Ap. i. 1, 15, 16; Dial. 
85, 96, 105,133); xxiii. 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, 23, 24, 27, 31 (Dial. 17, 95, 
112, 122). 

5 Cf. Otto’s Justini Opera, tom. i. index iii. 


182 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


substance and so far as the events narrated are con- 
(2) Agrees, cerned precisely with the account given by our 
ee, first three Gospels. His language is not al- 
Substantially ways identical with theirs, as we shall see; 
our Gospels. but his story is, with a few trifling excep- 
tions, exactly the same as theirs: so that we may al- 
ready affirm that if his “memoirs” were not our Gos- 
pels, they at least related substantially the same story 
of Christ’s life. 

(3) Furthermore, the agreement between Justin’s 
account taken from the “memoirs” with that of our 
(3) The Gospels often extends fo small particulars, 
aeteement which are the more significant because of 
small par- their very smallness. Thus his account of 
Paar Christ’s infancy, unlike that given in the 
early apocrypha, is identical with that of our Gospels, 
save that he states that Christ was born in a cave near 
Bethlehem, and that the Magi were from Arabia! He 
refers to the enrolment under Cyrenius.2 He speaks of 
Christ’s natural growth from infancy to manhood,’ and 
says that at His baptism He was thirty years old, “more 
or less.’ * So the naming of the sons of Zebedee,® 
Christ’s silence at His trial,® Pilate’s sending Him to 
Herod,’ and the Jews’ story that He was stolen from 
the tomb by His disciples’ are examples of the slight 

1 Dial. 78. 

2 Ap. i. 34,46. When he appeals (Ap.i. 34) to the “ registers 
which were made under Cyrenius” (τῶν ἀπογραφῶν τῶν γενομένων 
ἐπὶ Kupnviov) for proof that “there is a certain village in the 
land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus 
Christ was born,” he probably merely takes for granted that such 
registers had been preserved by the Government. So when he 
appeals to the “ Acta Pilati” (i. 35, 48). 

8. Dial. 88. 4 Cf. ὡσεὶ, Luke iii. 23. 

5 Dial. 106. 6 Dial. 102, 103. 

7 Dial. 103. 8 Dial. 108. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 183 


coincidences in matters of fact which continually occur 
in the accounts of Justin and the Synoptists. 

(4) The differences between the two accounts are the 
following Justin says that Cyrenius was the first pro- 
curator of Judea ;? that Joseph was “of Beth- (4) The 


lehem ;”* that Jesus was born in a cave near fiterences 


Bethlehem ;* that the Magi were from Ara- Gospels. 


1 It is hardly fair with Sanday (Gospels in the Second Cen- 
tury, p. 91) to infer from the fact that Justin derives Christ’s 
Davidie descent through Mary (Ap. i. 32; Dial. 100, 120), that 
he had a genealogy of Christ different from those of Matthew 
and Luke; for he may have understood one or both of these to 
give Mary’s pedigree. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. i. 21, quoted 
by Westcott’s Canon, p. 91, note 1, though Westcott goes too far 
in saying that Clement “distinctly refers the genealogy to Mary”’) 
apparently understood even Matthew to give Mary’s pedigree (if 
not her lineal, at least her legal, pedigree). Her Davidic descent, 
which may be defended from Acts ii. 30; Rom. i. 3; Luke i. 32, 
was universally believed in the early Church (cf. Andrew’s Life 
of Our Lord, p. 52); and while the explanation of the Gospel 
genealogies adopted by Africanus (Eus. H. E. i. 7) referred both 
to Joseph, Mary was supposed and is expressly said by Africanus 
to have been of the same tribe. Justin refers to none of Mary’s 
ancestors later than David, and mentions as her ancestors, David, 
Jesse, Phares, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham, all which names 
occur in both Matthew and Luke, while his reference to Adam as 
the ancestor of these patriarchs, in giving his reason why Christ 
called himself the Son of Man (Dial. 100), points to Luke iii. 38. 
Of the course of descent from David to Mary, Justin is silent. 

2 Ap. i. 84, ἐπιτρόπους Cyrenius, whatever his precise office, 
was not the first “governor.” Luke ii. 2, has αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη 
ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου. 

8. Dial. 78. “He went up from Nazareth, where he dwelt, to 
Bethlehem, ὅθεν ἦν. This is obviously a reference to Luke ii. 4: 
“διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Aaveid;” but the fact is 
stated by Justin so as to apparently imply that Joseph had lived 
in Bethlehem previously. 

4 Dial. 78. “Since he could not find lodging in the village.” 
Caves were often used as stables, and Justin says the Magi found 
Jesus laid in a manger. 


184 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


bia ;! and that Jesus was deformed, or not of comely 
aspect, as had been predicted.* He speaks of John the 
Baptist “sitting” by the Jordan,’ and states that when 
Jesus went down to the water to be baptized, a fire was 
kindled in the Jordan,* and that the Voice from heaven 


1 Dial. 78. Sanday (Gospels in the Second Century, p. 93) 
makes Justin say that Herod “ordered a massacre of all the 
children in Bethlehem.” So he does in Dial. 78; but in Dial. 103, 
he says that Herod, “when He [Christ] was born, slew all the 
children born in Bethlehem about that time (ἐκείνου τοῦ καιροῦ) ;” 
cf. Matt. ii. 16, “from two years old and under.” 

2 Dial. 14, 49, 85, 88, 100, 110, 121, referring to Isa. liii. 2, 3. 
ἀειδὴς. 

3 Dial. 51, 88. καθεζομένου. 

4 Dial. 88. κατελθόντος τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ πῦρ ἀνήφθη 
ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ. Cf. Otto, sub loco. The same legend was found 
in the Predicatio Pauli by the author of the tract De Rebaptis- 
mate (ascribed by some to Ursinus, a monk of the fourth century; 
by others to Cyprian. Cf. Ante-Nic. Fathers, Amer. ed. v. 665), 
“cum baptizaretur, ignem super aquam esse visum.” In the Gos- 
pel of the Ebionites (according to Epiphanius, Her. xxx. 13), 
when Jesus came up from the water a great light (φῶς) shone 
round the place (περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον) ; and the old Latin Co- 
dex a (Vercellensis) adds to Matt. iii. 15, “et cum baptizaretur 
lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua ita ut timerent omnes qui ad- 
venerant” (cf. Sanday, Ibid., p. 108. He adds that there is a 
similar addition in g’ (San Germanensis)). Otto also cites Orace. 
Sibyll. vii. 82-84 : — 


“Ὥς ce λόγον γέννησε πατὴρ, πνεῦμ' ὄρνιν ἀφῆκε, 
᾿Οξὺν ἀπαγγελτῆρα λόγων, λόγος, ὕδασιν ἁγνοῖς 
Ῥαίνων σὸν βάπτισμα, d¢ οὗ πυρὸς ἐξεφαάνθης, 


and the Liturgy of the Syrians, which, in the narrative of the 
baptism, has “quo tempore adscendit ab aquis, sol inclinavit radios 
suos.” In this last case we may perhaps see the original form of 
the legend. Justin does not say that the “memoirs ” related this 
legend. His language is, “ When Jesus had gone to the river 
Jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped 
into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan; and the Apos- 
tles of this very Christ of ours wrote that when He came out of 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 185 


which followed the baptism repeated the words of the 
Second Psalm, “Thou art my Son; this day have I 
begotten thee.”! He states that Christ healed those 
who “from birth were blind, dumb, and lame,’? but 


the water the Holy Spirit as a dove lighted on Him.” Thus he 
carefully makes the “memoirs” responsible only for the descent 
of the Spirit as a dove. 

1 Dial. 88,103. These words are found in Luke iii. 22, aecord- 
ing to 1). and lat. mss. a, Ὁ, ¢, ff,’ 1. The Gospel of the Ebionites 
(Epiphan. xxx. 13) had “Thou art my beloved Son; in Thee I 
am well pleased. And again, To-day I have begotten Thee.” 
The words of the Psalm are referred to the baptism by Clement 
of Alexandria (Pedag. i. 6); Methodius (Conviv. virgg. Discourse 
viii. ch. 9); Lactantius (Instt. Div. iv. 15); Juvencus (Hist. Ev. 
i. 363); and Augustine (Enchiridion, c. 49). (Cf. Otto, sub Dial. 
88, where the quotations are given. He also refers to Acta Petri 
et Pauli, c. 29; but there seems in that place to be no refer- 
ence of the words to the baptism.) Augustine, however (Har- 
mony of the Gospels, ii. 14) says the reading was found in some 
codices of Luke, but was said not to be found in the more 
ancient codices. Either Justin’s manuscript had this Western 
corruption, or he had heard it thus quoted and relied on his 
memory. 

2 Ap. i. 22. Our Gospels contain no examples of the heal- 
ing of those dumb or lame from birth. The manuscripts of 
Justin read “ywdovs καὶ παραλυτικοὺς καὶ ἐκ γενετῆς πονηροὺς.᾽ 
Most editions substitute for πονηροὺς πηροὺς, following Dial. 69, 
where we read, “τοὺς ἐκ γενετῆς καὶ κατὰ τὴν σάρκα πηροὺς Kal 
κωφοὺς καὶ χωλοὺς ἰάσατο, τὸν μὲν ἅλλεσθαι, τὸν δὲ καὶ ἀκούειν, τὸν 
δὲ καὶ ὁρᾶν τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ ποιήσας. In Ap. i. 22, Gildersleeve 
substitutes ἀναπήρους. Whatever the reading, it should be noted 
that Justin connects ἐκ γενετῆς only with πονηροὺς in Ap. i. 22, and 
chiefly with πηροὺς in Dial. 69; and from the latter passage it is 
clear that Justin meant by πηροὺς (and therefore probably in Ap. 
i. 22 by πονηροὺς --ς suffering), the blind. Hence I infer he had 
in mind John ix. 1, and that he includes the dumb and lame by a 
pardonable inexactness of statement. In Mark ix. 21, however, 
the “lunatic” boy is said to have been afflicted ἐκ παιδιόθεν. 
Could Justin have had in mind, also, Acts iii. 2, and confused it 
with Christ’s miracles? — 


186 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


that the Jews ascribed these miracles to magic;! also 
that the ass’s colt used at the triumphal entry was 
found by the disciples “bound to a vine at the en- 
trance of a village.”* He cites from the “memoirs” 
that in Gethsemane Christ’s sweat fell like drops when 
He was praying ;* that the Jews came upon Christ 
“from the Mount of Olives,’* and that there was not 
a man to aid Him? Pilate sent Him bound to Herod 
as a compliment ;® and Justin apparently represents 
Herod Antipas as a successor of Archelaus in the 
dominion of Herod the Great.’ He says that His 
persecutors placed Christ on the judgment-seat, and 
said, “Judge us;”°® and that at the crucifixion the 


1 Dial. 69. καὶ yap μάγον εἶναι αὐτὸν ἐτόλμων λέγειν καὶ λαο- 
πλάνον. In Clem. Recog. i. 58, a scribe declares that Christ per- 
formed “signa et prodigia ut magus non ut propheta.” So in the 
report of Pilate, incorporated in the Acts of Peter and Paul, we 
read that the Jews asserted Jesus “‘magum esse et contra eorum 
legem agere.” In Ap. i. 30, Justin undertakes to prove that Christ 
did not do miracles μαγικῇ τέχνῃ. Celsus (Orig. contra Cels. ii. 
48) attributed them to sorcery. This charge was, in fact, substan- 
tially the same with that mentioned in the Gospels (Matt. ix. 34; 
xi. 24, etc.), that he cast out devils by Beelzebub. For λαυπλάνον, 
see Matt. xxvii. 63 and John vii. 12. 

2 Ap. i. 32. 

8 Dial. 103. Justin significantly cites it “from the memoirs, 
which I say were composed by the Apostles and their followers ; ” 
thus no doubt referring the story to Luke’s Gospel. On the spu- 
riousness, however, of Luke xxii. 48, 44, see Notes on Select Read- 
ings in Westcott and Hort’s Greek Testament; and on the bear- 
ing of Justin’s text on the age of the Gospels, see below. Justin, 
however, has only θρόμβοι, not θρόμβοι αἵματος. Tatian, in his 
Diatessaron, had the passage, which is translated by Meesinger 
from Ephraem’s Commentary, “et factus est sudor ejus ut gutte 
sanguinis.” 

4 Dial. 103. ἀπὸ. 5 Dial. 103. 

6 Dial. 103. χαριζόμενος. 7 Dial. 103. 

8 Ap. i. 35. κρῖνον ἡμῖν. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 187 


mocking bystanders not only shook their heads and 
shot out their lips! but “twisted their noses to each 
other,” and cried, “Let Him who raised the dead 
deliver Himself ;”* and “He called Himself Son of 
God; let Him come down and walk; let God save 
Him.”* After He was crucified, all His acquaintances 
forsook Him, having denied Him.’ To these items 
are to be added two sayings of Christ’s, reported by 
Justin, but not found in our Gospels. These are, “In 
whatsoever things I take you, in these will I also 
judge ;”® and “There shall be schisms and heresies.” 7 
But with these we have enumerated all the substantial 


1 Ap. i. 38; Dial. 101. 

2 Dial. 103. τοῖς μυξωτῆρσιν ἐν αλλήλοις διαῤῥινοῦν. 

8 Ap. i. 88. ὁ νεκροὺς ἀνεγείρας ῥυσάσθω ἑαυτόν. 

4 Dial. 103. 5 Ap. i. 50. 

6 Dial. 47. Διὸ καὶ ὁ ἡμέτερος κύριος “I. X. εἶπεν. Ἔν οἷς ἂν 
ὑμᾶς καταλάβω, ἐν τούτοις καὶ κρινῶ. We find this nowhere else at- 
tributed to Christ. Clement of Alexandria (Quis Div. Salv. ο. 40) 
quotes it, with a slight variation of text, without indicating its 
source. Otto refers to Hippolytus (Περὶ τῆς rod παντὸς αἰτίας, 2) 
“whatever manner of persons they [were when they] lived with- 
out faith, as such they shall be faithfully judged” (Ante-Nic. Fa- 
thers, Amer. trans. v. 222); but Hippolytus seems merely to state 
a similar idea. By John Climachus (died 606), it was attributed 
to Ezekiel (cf. Otto). Apocryphal or interpolated writings of 
Ezekiel were known in the early Church; and J. B. Lightfoot 
(Clem. Rom. ad Cor. viii. note 12) supposes that Justin obtained it 
from that source, and from lapse of memory ascribed it to Christ, 
perhaps confusing it with John v. 30. Others (Grabe, Credner, 
etc.) suppose that Justin obtained it from the Gospel according 
to the Hebrews. Others consider it an inaccurate quotation of 
John v. 30, or Matt. xxiv. 30, and xxv. 1, etc.; or an oral tradi- 
tion; or perhaps a gloss (Otto), summarizing these passages. 

7 Dial. 35. Justin cites, as words of Christ, ἔσονται σχίσματα 
καὶ αἱρέσεις." Cf. 1 Cor. xi. 18, 19. The sentence is found no- 
where else attributed to Christ; but similar summaries to the same 
effect are numerous. Cf. Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Clem. 
Recog., quoted by Otto. 


188 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


differences between Justin’s account of Christ’s life 
and that of the canonical Gospels.! 
If, then, we review these items, it must be evident 
that in comparison with the large amount of agreement 
between Justin and the canonical Gospels, 
The differ- ; Ree: : 
a the differences are most trifling. It is to be 
ΠΣ noted, moreover, that for none of the points in 
which he differs from our Gospels, except the “ bloody 
.., sweat,” does Justin cite the authority of 
and not cited Ee 
from the the “memoirs.” Indeed, he seems carefully 
**memoirs,”’ ξ : Ε - 
to avoid doing so, as may be seen in his ac- 
count of the baptism, where, while relating that a fire 


1 Justin (Dial. 88) states that Jesus was a carpenter by trade, 
and made “ ploughs and yokes by which He taught the symbols of 
righteousness and an active life.’ Mark vi. 3, however, according 
to the correct text, reads οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων; The tradition 
that He made ploughs and yokes evidently grew, as Justin’s own 
language shows, from the desire to exhibit the symbolical import 
of His work. In Dial. 51, he says that Christ came and put an 
end to (ἔπαυσε) John’s preaching and baptizing. But this can 
hardly be called a divergence from our Gospels; for though John 
did not immediately cease working after Christ’s baptism, yet 
Christ did not enter on His Galilean ministry till John was impris- 
oned. Cf. Luke iii. 19, 20; John iii. 26-30. Dr. Sanday says 
(Gospels in the Second Century, p. 98): “There is nothing in 
Justin (as in Luke xxiv.) to show that the ascension did not take 
place on the same day as the resurrection.” But neither is there 
anything in either Luke or Justin to show that it did; and Justin 
speaks of Christ’s instructing the disciples in the true meaning of 
the Old Testament after His resurrection (Ap. i. 50; Dial. 106), 
which would seem to imply that some time elapsed between the 
resurrection and the ascension. In Dial. 35, Justin makes Christ 
say, “ Many false Christs and false apostles shall arise;” and in 
Dial. 51, that He preached, “saying that the kingdom of heaven 
is at hand and that He must... be crucified, and on the third 
day rise again, and would appear again in Jerusalem and would 
eat and drink with His disciples ;”” but these passages are so easily 
explained as amplifications of the statements of our Gospels that 
they can scarcely be cited as extra-canonical sayings. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 189 


appeared on the Jordan, he makes the Apostles respon- 
sible only for the fact of the descent of the Spirit like 
a dove. As to the differences themselves, ang may be 
some are obvious mistakes, as when he makes erie τὶ, 
Cyrenius first procurator of Judea, and when ©plained. 
he states that the Jews went to arrest Christ from the 
Mount of Olives, and when he shows ignorance of the 
civil positions held under the Romans by the Herods. 
Others are inferences which may be drawn from the 
Gospels, as that Joseph was “from Bethlehem,” and 
that Pilate sent Jesus bound to Herod as a compliment. 
Others are general statements with perhaps a mixture of 
exaggeration, as when he seems to say that Christ healed 
not only the blind from birth, but also those born lame 
and deaf. In other cases his recital is colored by his 
desire to show the fulfilment of prophecy. Thus he prob- 
ably represented Christ’s persecutors as saying “Judge 
us,” because he read in Isaiah (lviii. 2,) “ They ask of me 
judgment ;” and Christ Himself as deformed, because 
he read (Isa. li. 2), “ He was without form and come- 
liness.” In two cases Justin conforms to textual errors 
which are still represented in manuscripts of our Gos- 
pels ; namely, in the case of the bloody sweat and the 
words spoken from heaven at the baptism. Of all these 
differences from the canonical Gospels, only two can be 
plausibly adduced as evidence for Justin’s use of an ex- 
tra-canonical document. These are his account of the 
fire in the Jordan, and the words spoken at the baptism. 
Both were found with variations, according to Epipha- 
nius, in the Gospel of the Ebionites, but they are also 
found scattered in other works; and while the words 
spoken at the baptism are doubtless to be regarded as 
an early textual corruption of the canonical account, 
the story of the fire was probably a mere tradition cur- 


190 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


rent in various quarters. Its earliest form seems to 
appear in the Syrian Liturgy, which states that when 
Christ ascended from the water, “the sun bended its 
rays.” 

As to the two extra-canonical sayings of our Lord, 
neither is elsewhere found attributed to Him. The 
first — “In whatsoever things I take you, in these I 
will judge” — is repeated by Clement of Alexandria, 
but without hint of its source, and by a later writer is 
attributed to Ezekiel. Interpolated writings of Ezekiel 
are known to have been current in the early Church, 
and Justin may have confused this phrase with our 
Lord’s warnings to the disciples of the suddenness 
and decisiveness of the second advent. The second 
saying —“ There shall be schisms and heresies ” — re- 
minds us of Paul’s words, —“I hear that there are 
schisms among you, and I partly believe it; for there 
must be heresies among you,’—and looks like a sub- 
stantial expression in Paul’s language of Christ’s warn- 
ings against false prophets. So Justin shortly after adds 
to Christ’s prediction that “many false prophets shall 
arise,’ 2 the words “and false apostles.” Similar warn- 
ings, in various phraseology taken from later times, are 
attributed to Christ by several early writers. 

Of course it is possible that Justin obtained these 
items from some document. If he did, however, it in-— 
fluenced him but slightly, and must have been a docu- 
ment which merely added to the common canonical 
Oraltradi- narrative a few legendary details. But while 
tion and this is possible, oral tradition, together with 
δ στς corruption of the Gospel text, is quite suffi- 
cient to explain all the points of difference. The marvel 
is that so little legendary matter is found in Justin. 


1 1 Cor. xi. 18, 19. 2 Matt. xxiv. 11. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 191 


When, for example, we compare his account of the 
Magi with the fanciful account given forty years earlier 
by Ignatius of the Star of Bethlehem,’ we cannot but 
remark the sobriety of Justin’s narrative. In the same 
way his account differs from the fragments of Papias,? 
and always in the direction of the simple, unadorned 
story of the Gospels. 

It is certain, therefore, that the extra-canonical ele- 
ment in Justin, so far as it concerns matters of fact, is so 
insignificant that it does not in the least af- ,, , 

i ne force of 
fect the inference which we are forced to draw this substan- 
from his agreement with our Gospels, that mene ith 
these latter were identical with the “me- °” GPs 
moirs.” This general and really conclusive argument 
should not be forgotten in subsequent questions of the 
relations of texts to one another. We are sure that 
Justin used narratives of Christ’s life which claimed 
the authorship of apostles or their companions, which 
were publicly used in the Church, and which gave 
the same story that is preserved in our Gospels; 
and since, in the generation immediately following his, 
our four Gospels were, by the testimony of Irenzeus 
and others, recognized as apostolic and universal au- 
thorities in the same way in which they are now 
recognized, it is absurd to suppose that in so short 
a time they had displaced others which had already 
received the veneration and moulded the faith of be- 
lievers. The facts which Justin presents throw the 
whole burden of proof on those who venture to deny 
the identity of his “memoirs” with the canonical 
Gospels. 

On what, then, is such a denial based? It is based 


1 Ad Eph. 19. 
2 Tren. adv. Her. v. 32, and, perhaps, v. 36. 


192 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


on the textual differences between Justin’s quotations 
from the “memoirs” and the narrative of the Synop- 
The textual ti¢ Gospels, and on the alleged textual agree- 
differences. ment of his quotations with those found in 
certain early uncanonical writings. I can only give the 
results of an examination of the evidence upon these 
points, with a few illustrations. 

(1) It is, then, a fact that Justin’s quotations from 
the “memoirs” differ considerably from the text of our 
They are Gospels. In the first Apology, for example, 
considerable. there are, as I reckon, thirty-six passages 
which may be regarded as taken from the “memoirs,” 
because either citing some instance of Christ’s teach- 
ing or relating some event of His life. But only two 
of these agree exactly with the language of our Gos- 
pels! The rest differ from it, sometimes slightly, some- 
times considerably; and the question arises whether 
the variations are such as to lead us to suppose that 
Justin used another Gospel, either alone or in addition 
to ours, from which he took this variant text, and which 
he therefore regarded as an apostolic and authoritative 
source. 

To answer this question we have to inquire into Jus- 
Justin’s tin’s method of quotation elsewhere, and to 


habit of : ἷ : 
quotation. ask if, assuming his use of our Gospels, that 


1 Ap.i.16: Οὐχὶ mas ὁ λέγων μοι Κύριε, κύριε, εἰσελεύσεται εἰς 
τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου 
τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Cf. Matt. vii. 21. ΑΡ. i. 19: Τὰ ἀδύνατα παρὰ 
ἀνθρώποις δυνατὰ παρὰ bed. Cf. Luke xviii. 27 (... παρὰ τῷ θεῷ 
ἐστιν). Sanday (Gospels, ete., p. 113) cites Ap. i. 15, Οὐκ ἦλθον 
καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν; but the correct 
text of Matt. ix. 13 omits εἰς μετάνοιαν, and Luke v. 32 reads οὐκ 
ἐλήλυθα. He also (p. 115) cites Ap. i. 35, where Justin quotes 
Zech. ix. 9,in part as in Matt. xxi.5; but I include only quotations 
from the “ memoirs.” 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 193 


method will explain his variations from the canonical 


text. 

Fortunately we may test his method, since his writ- 
ings contain a few quotations from well-known classic 
authors and abound in long quotations from the Old 
Testament. Examining these, I have obtained the fol- 
lowing results :— 

In the two Apologies there are nine quotations from 
the classics, — six from Plato, two from Xenophon, and 
one from Euripides. Five of these are mere js classical 
phrases, very short, and most of them quite dctations. 
familiar ; and these Justin repeats accurately. Another, 
though a familiar passage from Plato, is quoted very 
freely, and its author is simply called “a certain one of 
the ancients.”?. Again Justin quotes even his favorite 
Timeeus loosely,2 and varies the text of still another 
Platonic sentence. The familiar opening paragraph of 
Xenophon’s Memoirs he cites inaccurately,® and gives 


1 Ap. i. 5. λέγοντες “ καινὰ εἰσφέρειν αὐτὸν δαιμόνια. Xen. 
Mem.i.1. Ap.i.39. “ἡ γλῶσσ᾽ ὀμώμοκεν, ἡ δὲ φρὴν ἀνώμοτος. 
Eur. Hippol. 607. Ap. i. 44. ὥστε καὶ Πλάτων εἰπών “Αἰτία 
ἑλομένου, θεὸς δ᾽ ἀναίτιος. De Rep. 10, 617 E. Ap. ii. 8. “᾿Αλλ᾽ 
οὔτι γε πρὸ τῆς ἀληθείας τιμητέος ἀνήρ." De Rep. 10, 595 C 
(Plato has ἀλλ᾽ οὐ γὰρ πρό γε ἀληθείας, etc.). Ap.i.60. “ἐχίασεν 
αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ παντὶ. Plato, Tim. 36. 

2 Ap.i.3. ἔφη γάρ που καί τις τῶν παλαιῶν" “Av μὴ οἱ ἄρχοντες 
φιλοσοφήσωσι καὶ οἱ ἀρχόμενοι, οὐκ ἂν εἴη τὰς πόλεις εὐδαιμονῆσαι. 
De Rep. 5, 418 D. ἐὰν μὴ ἢ οἱ φιλόσοφοι βασιλεύσωσιν ἐν ταῖς 
πόλεσιν ἢ οἱ βασιλεῖς .. . φιλοσοφήσωσιν, οὐκ ἔστι κακῶν παῦλα ταῖς 
πόλεσιν. ‘Lhe same sentiment is expressed in Ep. vii. 820 B. 

8 Ap. ii.10. Socrates said, “rév δὲ πατέρα καὶ δημιουργὸν πάντων 
οὔθ᾽ εὑρεῖν padiov οὔθ᾽ εὑρόντα cis πάντας εἰπεῖν ἀσφαλές. Tim. 28 C. 
τὸν μὲν οὖν ποιητὴν καὶ πατέρα τοῦδε τοῦ πάντος εὑρεῖν τε ἔργον καὶ 
εὑρόντα εἰς πάντας ἀδύνατον λέγειν. 

+ Ap. i. 60. τὰ δὲ τρίτα περὶ τὸν τρίτον. Ps.-Ep. ii. 812 E. καὶ 
τρίτον περὶ τὰ τρίτα. 

® Ap.ii.10. Justin changes the order of the clauses as well as 
the tense, and for οὐ νομίζειν substitutes μὴ ἡγεῖσθαι. 

13 


194 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


from the same book a condensed account of “ Hercules’s 
choice.”! It thus appears that whenever he cites from 
a Greek author a passage of more than a few words, he 
fails to reproduce the exact text of the original. 

It is more important, however, to examine Justin’s 
Anes quotations from the Old Testament. These 
from the Old were, of course, taken from the Septuagint 

translation ; and while the text of the Septua- 
gint is itself sometimes uncertain, yet results may be 
reached with approximate accuracy. 

Confining our examination still to the Apology, 
which is sufficient to test Justin’s method, I have found 
forty-seven quotations from the Old Testament. Of 
these, six agree exactly with Van Ess’s text of the 
Septuagint,” and in eight the variation is so slight? that 
the quotations may be fairly called accurate. Twenty- 
two* may be classed as more or less variant in text; 


1 Ap. ii. 11. Cf. Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 21, ete. To the above pas- 
sages might be added Ap. i. 2. ὑμεῖς δ᾽ ἀποκτεῖναι μὲν δύνασθε, 
βλάψαι δ᾽ ov. On this Gildersleeve’s note is, “ The sentiment is 
found in Plato. Socrates says (Apol. 30 C): ἐμὲ μὲν yap οὐδὲν 
ἂν βλάψειεν οὔτε Μέλητος οὔτε “Avutos* οὐδὲ yap ἂν δύναιτο. The 
language, with its effective rhetorical position, is traditional. ᾿Ἐμὲ 
δὲ "Avuros καὶ Μέλητος ἀποκτεῖναι μὲν δύνανται, βλάψαι δὲ οὔ. 
Hpict. Enchir. 53. 3; Diss. 1. 29.18; 2. 2.15; 3.3. 21.” 

2 Ap. i. 33 (Isa. vii. 14), translating, however, “ Immanuel; ”’ 
i. 38 (Isa. 1. 6); 1. 53 (Isa. liv. 1); i. 63 (Isa. 1. 3), twice; i. 64 
(Gen. i. 2). 

8 Ap. i. 37, differing in only one word from Isa. i. 3; i. 37, dif- 
fering in order of clauses from Isa. Ixvi. 1; i. 40 (Ps. xix. 2); i. 
40 (Pss. i. and ii.); 1. 45 (Ps. ex. 13); i. 48 (Isa. lvii. 1); i. 54 
(Ps. xix. 15), introducing ἰσχύρος as explanatory; i. 55 (Lam. iv. 
20); i. 59 (Gen. i. 1-3), οὕτως for the second φῶς. 

4 Ap. i. 32 (Gen. xlix. 10, though here Justin may have used a 
different text of the LXX.); i. 35 (Isa. ix. 6, νεανίσκος ἡμῖν ἀπεδόθη 
for vids καὶ ἐδόθη ἡμῖν) ; i. 35 (Isa. Ixv. 2, and lviii. 2, with several 
verbal differences) ; i. 35 (Ps. xxi. 17, 18, with slight variations) ; 
i, 37 (Isa. i. 11-15), a very mixed quotation of clauses in confused 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 195 


eight ! as very free quotations ; and three? are mani- 
fest cases of free combination of different passages. In 


order; i. 38 (Isa. lxv. 2, with slight variations); i. 38 (Ps. xxi. 17, 
19), two clauses united as in i. 35, but in opposite order, and in 
both places reading “feet and hands ” for “ hands and feet ” of the 
LXX.; i. 38 (Ps. iii. 6, with ἀνέστην for ἐξεγέρθη, and ἀντελάβετο 
for ἀντιλήψεται) ; 1. 88 (Ps. xxi. 8, 9, with slight variations) ; i. 39 
(Isa. ii. 3, with slight variations) ; i. 41 (Ps. χουν]. quoted freely, 
though Justin’s text may have varied from ours. He seems to 
have combined verse 5 with 1 Chron. xvi. 5 (“idols of demons”). 
Did he combine them, or were they combined in his text? He 
claims also that the Jews had cut out the last verse of the Psalm, 
“6 κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν ἀπὸ tov ξύλου. There is, however, no 
manuscript authority for the verse in the LXX. The Christians 
may have used a Targum written in the Christian interest. Cf. 
Sanday’s Gospels, etc., p. 47); i. 44 (Isa. i. 16, with slight varia- 
tions, indicating lapses of memory); i. 47 (Isa. lxiv. 10-12, with 
slight variations) ; i. 49 (Isa. lv. 1-3, with slight variations) ; i. 50, 
51 (Isa. liii. 12; lii. 18-15; liii. 1-12, quoted with unusual accuracy 
for the most part, but in c. 50, Isa. liii. 12 differs from the LXX. 
and from the quotation of the same verse in c. 51); i.51 (Ps. xxiv. 
7, 8, with several variations) ; i. 51 (Dan. vii. 13, referred by Jus- 
tin to Jeremiah. The quotation also slightly varies from our text 
of Daniel; and Justin adds “ καὶ of ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ σὺν aire,” proba- 
bly from Matt. xxv. 31. The text of Daniel, however, was specially 
variable); i. 52 (Isa. lxvi. 24, with παυθήσεται for τελευτήσει); 
i. 53 (Isa. i. 9, with slight variations) ; i. 53 (Jer. ix. 26, quoted as 
from Isaiah, with variations of text and transposition of clauses) ; 
i. 54 (Gen. xlix. 10, 11, with slight variations from the quotation 
in c. 32); i. 61 (Isa. i. 16-20, with the same variations as in 
c. 44). 

1 Ap. i.37 (Isa. lviii. 6,7); i.44 (Deut. xxx. 15, 19, quoted very 
freely and said to have been spoken by God to Adam); i. 47 (Isa. 
i. 7, quoted freely and mixed with a reminiscence of Jer. 1. 3); 
i. 49 (Isa. v. 20); i. 60 (a free recital of the story of the brazen 
serpent (Numb. xxi. 6-9), introducing τύπῳ and πιστεύητε) ; i. 60 
(Deut. xxxii. 22); i. 62 (Ex. iii. 5); i. 63 (Ex. iii. 2, 5, 14, quoted 
three times freely, but retaining the important words of the 
original). 

2 Ap. i. 32 (Isa. xi. 1, mixed with Numb. xxiv. 17); i. 52 (Ez. 
Xxxvii. 7, quoted freely and followed by Isa. xlv. 23, with varia- 


196 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


five of these instances,! also, the quotation appears to 
have been modified by the remembrance of some pas- 
sage in the Gospels, usually itself a quotation of the 
same Old Testament text; and several evident slips 
of memory occur. It thus appears that while the 
agreement of Justin’s quotations with the text of the 
Septuagint is greater than with our text of the Gospels, 
yet there is more variation than agreement, and an evi- 
dent dependence in many cases upon memory. The 
quotations from the Old Testament in the Dialogue 
are more numerous and longer and somewhat more 
accurate than in the Apology ;? but the same general 
characteristics prevail in them. If, however, there is so 
much freedom in Justin’s quotations from the Old Tes- 
tament, which he declared to be inspired, and from even 
His textual He Verbiage of which he drew predictions of 
variations Christian truth and history, we ought not to 
from our δ : 5 Ε 

Gospels not be surprised at still more freedom in his use 
mp" ΟΕ the Gospel narratives, since three of these 
are Synoptic accounts and therefore specially liable to 
be commingled, and since he lived near enough to the 
apostolic age for oral tradition to render less necessary 


tions, as if it formed part of Ezekiel) ; i. 52 (where a passage is 
quoted as if from Zechariah, which is a mixture of Zech. ii. 6, 
with reminiscences of Isa. xliii. 5, 6, and xi. 12; and Zech. xii. 
10-12, quoted as in John xix. 37, with additions from Isa. Ixiii. 
17, and Ixiv. 11). 

1 Ap. i. 34 (Mic. v. 2, as Matt. ii. 6, but omitting τὸν Ἰσράηλ) ; 
i. 35 (Zech. ix. 9, as Matt. xxi. 5); i. 51 (Dan. vii. 13, influenced 
by Matt. xxv. 31); i. 48 (Isa. xxxv. 6, with reminiscence of Matt. 
xi. 5); i. 52 (Zech. xii. 10-12, as John xix. 37). 

2 Such as the reference of Zech. ix. 9, to Zephaniah (Ap. i. 
35); of Dan. vii. 13, to Jeremiah (Ap. i. 51); of Jer. ix. 26, to 
Isaiah (Ap. i. 53); and the statement that Deut. xxx. 15, 19, was 
spoken by God to Adam (Ap. i. 44). 

8 Cf. Sanday’s Table, based on Credner (Gospels, ete., p. 41). 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 197 


the exact quotation of the Gospels than a later age 
would require. 

Of, then, the thirty-four variant quotations from the 
“memoirs” contained in the Apology, fifteen’ 4 steal 
may be explained as textual variations of pas- explained 
sages in our Gospels, quite similar to the variations found 
in many quotations from the Old Testament, , 

ANE Z : : y depend- 
and indicating that Justin quoted the Gospels ence on 
memory, 
from memory or else changed the language to : 
express more briefly or clearly the sense; fifteen? ex- 


1 Ap.i. 15 (Matt. v. 28, with verbal variations, but the principal 
words retained, and mapa τῷ θεῷ added to make the meaning 
clearer); i.15 (Matt. v. 32, using the same words, but putting 
the indicative for the subjunctive tense, and adding ἀφ᾽ ἑτέρου 
ἀνδρὸς for clearness) ; i. 15 (Matt. xix. 12, with the order of the 
first two clauses changed, εὐνοῦχοι repeated, and the clause “ Let 
him who can receive it,” etc. paraphrased); i. 15 (Matt. vi. 19, 
20, with very slight variations) ; i. 15 (Matt. vi. 1, with μὴ ποιεῖτε 
ταῦτα πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων for προσέχετε τὴν δικαι- 
οσύνην ὑμῶν μὴ ποιεῖν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι 
αὐτοῖς. The following clause is the same in Justin and Matthew); 
i. 16 (Luke vi. 29, with slight variations, and χιτῶνα and ἱμάτιον 
transposed as in Matt. v. 39); 1. 16 (Matt. v. 22 abbreviated, yet 
so as to give the substantial meaning); i. 16 (Matt. v. 41, with 
slight verbal variation); i. 16 (Matt. v. 16, with slight verbal vari- 
ations, and “let your good works shine,” instead of “let your light 
shine”); i. 16 (Matt. v. 34, influenced by Jas. v. 12, but agree- 
ing with Matthew in “τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ); 
i. 16 (Luke xviii. 18; Mark x. 17, with 6 ποιήσας τὰ πάντα added 
to ὁ θεὸς (the correct text of Matt. xix. 16 reads, “Master, 
what good thing shall I do,” etc.)); i. 17 (Matt. xxii. 17-20; 
Mark xii. 14-17; Luke xx. 22-25, with verbal variations, but the 
last verse nearly exact) ; i. 17 (Luke xii. 48, quoted quite freely) ; 
i. 63, twice (Matt. xi. 27, quoted with ἔγνω for ἐπιγινώσκει, the 
clauses transposed, and ois ἂν ὁ vids ἀποκαλύψῃ for ᾧ ἐὰν βούληται 
ὁ vids ἀποκαλύψαι. In Dial. 100, Justin has γινώσκει. Cf. below, 
for the various readings of this verse). 

2 A good example of this class is found in Ap. i. 16: “But 
many will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not eat and drink and 


198 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


or by combi. Plain themselves as a combination of parallel 
nalion passages in the Gospels, due to an intentional 


perform miracles in Thy name? And then will I say to them, 
Depart from me, workers of lawlessness. There shall be wailing 
and gnashing of teeth, when the righteous shine as the sun and 
the wicked are sent into the eternal fire,” where we have a com- 
bination of Matt. vii. 22, 23, and Luke xiii. 26-28, followed by a 
reminiscence of Matt. xiii. 42,43. So cf. Ap.i. 15 (a combination 
of elements from Matt. v. 29, 30; xviii. 8,9; Mark ix. 47: “If 
thy right eye offend thee,” ete.) ; i. 15 (quotes Matt. ix. 13, with 
εἰς μετάνοιαν from Luke v. 82, or the latter with ἐλήθυθα changed 
to ἦλθον from Matthew, though Justin’s text agrees with D in 
Luke. Either he combined the two Gospels, or they had already 
been combined in his copies. Justin adds, as if also spoken by 
Christ, ‘‘ For the heavenly Father wisheth the repentance of the sin- 
ner rather than his punishment,” a reminiscence of both Old and 
New Testament passages (Ez. xviii. 23; xxiii. 11; Rom. ii.4; 1 Tim. 
ii. 4; and 2 Pet. iii. 9), which gives the spirit of Christ’s minis- 
try); 1.15 (Ἐγὼ δὲ ὑμῖν λέγω" ἘΕὔχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶν ὑμῶν 
καὶ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς μισοῦντας ὑμᾶς καὶ εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους 
ὑμῖν καὶ εὔχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς. Justin’s text is most 
like Luke vi. 27, 28. That this passage was early confused and 
variously cited, appears from the Didache, c.1; Polye. ad Phil. 
xii.; Athenag. Supplic. xi., who, though introducing a clause 
from Luke, follows Matthew; Cl. Hom. iii. 19; xi. 32; xii. 32, 
where the quotations vary from each other and from Justin and 
from the Gospels; Apost. Constt. i. 1, 2. Matthew’s text was 
early corrupted from Luke, and the patristic quotations were 
freely and variously made. In Dial. 133, Justin himself omits the 
fourth clause, which he gives in the Apology; and in Dial. 85, he 
has, “‘ Jesus commanded us ἀγαπᾶν καὶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς); i. 15 (Matt. 
v. 42, 46, and Luke vi. 30); i. 15 (Matt. xvi. 26, with ὠφελεῖται 
and ἀπολέσῃ, apparently from Luke ix. 25. In Matthew, how- 
ever, D and latt. also have ὠφελεῖται) ; i. 15 (Luke vi. 35, 36, 
and Matt. vi. 45); 1. 16 (combination of Matt. xxii. 37; Luke x. 
27; Mark xii. 29; Matt. vi. 10); i. 16, 63 (Matt. vii. 24, or Luke 
vi. 47, with Matt. x. 40 or Luke x. 16, and, perhaps, John xiv. 
24); i. 16 (combination of Matt. xxiv. 5 with vii. 15 (freely cited), 
16 (with ἐκ for ἀπὸ), and 19); i. 19 (μὴ φοβεῖσθε κιτλ. Matt. x. 
28 and Luke xii. 4, with variations) ; i. 88 (combination of Luke 
i. 31, 32, and Matt. i. 21, attributing all to the angel who appeared 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 199 


or unintentional mingling of their language. In one 
instance a variation from the text of our oy by other 
Gospels is introduced, the cause of which 7¢4°"S- 
can be probably assigned, and which may serve to show 
the freedom with which Justin quoted. He cites! our 
Lord’s language thus: “If ye love them who love you, 
what new thing do ye?” and it is not improbable that 
he was led to do this by the thought, which he had just 
expressed in the preceding chapter, of the new morality 
which Christianity had introduced? So, when he con- 
tinues, “ For even the fornicators do this,’ ? we recall 
the mention of Christian chastity with which he had 
opened his description of the new morality. On the 
other hand, no particular reason can be assigned for the 
phrase, in which Justin stands alone, “ Where the treas- 
ure is, there also is the mind of the man.”® But if we 
add two instances® in which he appears to give merely 


to Mary. So too reads the Protevangelium of James (c. 11), which 
also has, “Thou shalt conceive of His word” (cf. Justin’s Ap. i. 
33), or “according to His word” (cf. Sanday’s Gospels, etc., p. 
129); i. 61 (John iii. 3 and Matt. xviii. 3, with variations: see 
below, on Justin’s use of John); i. 66 (in the account of the in- 
stitution of the Eucharist, Justin combines Matt. xxvi. 26-28 
(Mark xiv. 22-24) with Luke xxii. 17-20, or 1 Cor. xi. 23, 25: see 
below, on Justin’s testimony to corruptions of the text). 

1 Ap.i. 15. Ei ἀγαπᾶτε τοῦς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, τί καινὸν ποιεῖτε ; 

2 So Westcott’s Canon, p. 124. 

8 καὶ yap οἱ πόρνοι τοῦτο ποιοῦσιν. 

* Also, in quoting (Ap. i. 34) the words of Micah (v. 2) from 
Matthew (ii. 6), “who shall rule my people,” he omits the closing 
words τὸν Ἰσραήλ, fearing, no doubt, that they might be interpreted 
of the Jewish people. So cf. i. 15, ἀφ᾽ ἑτέρου ἀνδρός, added to 
ὃς γαμεῖ ἀπολελυμένην for clearness, and i. 16, ὁ ποιήσας τὰ πάντα, 
added to οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός, εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ θεός, perhaps a trace of his 
anti-Marcionism. 

5 Ap. i. 15. ὅπου yap 6 θησαυρός ἐστιν, ἐκεῖ καὶ ὁ νοῦς τοῦ 
ἀνθρώπου. 

6 Ap. i. 35, “Judge us;” fulfilling, as Justin points out, Isa. 


200 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


a summary of events recorded in the Gospels, and in 
which, through the desire to show the fulfilment of 
prophecy, he makes the language of Christ’s persecutors 
conform more to the Old Testament than to our Gos- 
pels, we shall have classified the various types of quo- 
tations from the “memoirs” found in the Apology. 

It thus certainly appears that Justin is more exact in 
his quotations from the Old Testament than in those 
#) Sivapint from the Gospels, if we suppose these to have 
variations been identical with his “memoirs;” but it 
therefore @o , also as certainly appears that if we extend 
theargument to the Gospels the same methods of quota- 


from the sub- ; : i 
stantial tion which he used with the Old Testament, 


agreement of § s Ξ ; 

Justin with and if we take into consideration the verbal 
Gina ii agreements and disagreements of the Synoptic 
Gospels themselves (which must have contributed then, 
as they do now, to inaccuracy of quotation), and if we 
remember that Justin’s object did not call so much for 
the precise repetition of the words of the “memoirs” 
as for their substantial sense, all his variations from the 
text of the Gospels may be reasonably explained while 
maintaining his principal use of them and their identity 
with the “memoirs.” In giving merely a statement of 
the results obtained from a comparison of his quota- 
tions with the canonical texts, we have necessarily 
failed to show, as would appear from a study of the 
evidence itself, the large amount of matter which Jus- 
tin has in common with the first three Gospels. Partial 
agreements with the texts given by Matthew and Luke 
are continual! The variations we have noted imply 


Iviii. 2 (“ask of me judgment”); i. 38, the mockery of Christ on 
the Cross, where Justin’s language is determined by the wish to 


show the fulfilment of Ps. xxi. 7. 
1 Cf. Sanday’s Gospels, ete., pp. 118-128. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 201 


that the element common to both is much larger than 
that which is peculiar to each. Agreements with Mark 
alone are indeed much less frequent, because that Gos- 
pel has itself so much in common with the other two; 
but even they are not wholly wanting? At any rate, 
Justin gives us a text which has so much in common 
with our Synoptic Gospels that it may clearly have 
been derived from them. The variations cannot be used, 
therefore, to overthrow the conclusion already drawn 
from their agreement in substance,—that his “me- 
moirs” were our Gospels. 

(2) But what is to be said of the alleged fact that in 
the peculiarities of his quotations Justin agrees with a 
Gospel text used by other early writers ? ΘΜ 


This fact has been often affirmed so strongly? toagree with 
: : . other post- 
as to convey the impression that Justin apostolic 


usually and closely represents a different writings, 
type of text from that of our Gospels; and the infer- 


1 Besides the mention of the naming of Zebedee’s sons (Dial. 
103), which is rather an agreement in matter than in language, we 
note an agreement with Mark ix. 47 in Justin’s quotation (Ap. i. 
15): “It is better for thee with one eye to enter into the kingdom 
of heaven” (though Mark has “kingdom of God”); and with 
Mark xii. 30, in the quotation (Ap. 1. 16; Dial. 93): “ Thou shalt 
worship the Lord thy God . . . with all thy heart and with all 
thy strength (ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου). Perhaps, too (i. 45), the 
expression, “ the mighty word which from Jerusalem His Aposiles, 
having gone out everywhere, preached,” is a reminiscence of 
Mark xvi. 20, “and they, having gone out everywhere, preached, 
the Lord working with them,” ete. If so, it would follow that 
Justin had the conclusion to Mark’s Gospel, which has become 
canonical. See below, on Justin’s testimony to corruptions of the 
Gospel text. Mark vi. 3 has also, “Is not this the carpenter?” 
So Justin (Dial. 103) says Jesus was reckoned as a carpenter; but 
as he adds that He made ploughs and yokes, he would seem to 
have also relied in this instance on tradition. 

2 Cf. Reuss’s History of the Canon, pp. 46, ete. 


202 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


ence has been drawn that the latter do not give the 
original narratives upon which the faith of the Church 
aunt) was built. Especially have Justin’s agree- 
with the Ps.- ments with the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 
seus den’ Recognitions been emphasized. Even 
Von Engelhardt! thinks these sufficient to imply the 
use by Justin of a written source other than our Gos- 
pels. Yet the fact is that the quotations in Justin and 
those in the Clementines differ as much as they agree. 
How far this Lhat there are a few instances of striking 
eee agreement, is true.2 One of the best exam- 
ples of this is the form in which both cite the saying, 
“Let your yea be yea and your nay nay, for that which 
is more than these is of the evil one.”® But the modi- 
fication of Matthew’s language evidently came from 
James v. 12, “ Let your yea be yea, and your nay nay,’ — 
a sentence, indeed, which is quoted by Clement of Alex- 
andria as our Lord’s words;* while, as Dr. Sanday has 
observed,® the second clause has no force when joined to 
the language of James, and it corresponds exactly with 
the expression reported by Matthew. Another example 
is Justin’s quotation® of Christ’s reply to the rich 
young man, “ Why callest thou me good? One is good, 
my Father who is in heaven.” The Homilist has:? “ Do 
not call me good: for the Good is one, the Father who vs 


1 Das Christenthum Justins, pp. 848, 344. 

2 Cf. Examples 2, 8, 9, 11, 18, on pages 205-207. 

8 Ap. i. 16; Clem. Hom. iii. 55; cf. Matt. v. 37. Justin has, 
περὶ δὲ τοῦ μὴ ὁμνύναι ὅλως. τἀληθῆ δὲ λέγειν ἀεί, οὕτως παρεκε- 
λεύσατο (xp-)* Μὴ ὀμόσητε ὅλως. Ἔστω δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ ναί, καὶ 
τὸ οὗ οὔ" τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ. So the Homilist 
gives it, ἔστω ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ ναί, καὶ τὸ οὗ οὔ" τὸ γὰρ περισσὸν τούτων 
ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστιν. 

4 Strom. v. 14. 5 Gospels, ete., p. 122. 

8 Dial. 101. 7 Hom. iii. 57; xviii. 3. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 203 


in heaven.” But not only do the first clauses differ in 
the two quotations, but traces of the last and most 
peculiar clause are widely scattered in early Christian 
literature ;! so that it is not improbable that both Justin 
and the Homilist found it in their text of Matthew. 
But however striking these occasional agreements, by 
the side of them can be placed examples of difference 
which effectually disprove the theory that The agree- 
Justin and the Clementines followed a com- Mens οὐ Τυδ- 
mon uncanonical source. Thus Justin? has, eaceniee 
“For your heavenly Father knoweth that ye differences. 
have need of these things;” the Clementine Homilist ὃ 
has, “For your heavenly Father knoweth that ye need 
all these things before ye ask Him.” Justin three times# 
has, “They shall come from the East and West, and 
shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the 
kingdom of heaven, but the sons of the kingdom shall 
be cast out into the outer darkness;”® the Homilist has,® 
“Many shall come from the East and from the West, 
the North and the South, and shall recline on the bosoms 
of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob,” omitting the con- 
cluding clause. In citing the saying reported in Matt. 
xi. 27, “ No one knoweth the Son save the Father,” etc., 
Justin reverses the first two clauses, twice’ has “No 


1 Cf. p. 206, note, (9). 

2 Ap. i. 15, quoting Matt. vi. 32, with slicht variations. 

8 Hom. iii. 55, mingling Matt. vi. 32 and 8. 

4 Dial. 76, 120, 140. 

5 “Ἥξουσιν ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται pera 
᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ ᾿Ισαὰκ καὶ ᾿Ιακὼβ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν " οἱ δὲ 

re ~ , > ΄ 3) A ᾿ ‘ > , 

υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας ἐκβληθήσονται εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον. 

6 Hom. viii. 4. πολλοὶ ἐλεύσονται ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν, ἄρκ- 

7 , A > , , , > A ‘ 

Tov Te καὶ μεσημβρίας, καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται eis κόλπους ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ 
Ἰσαὰκ καὶ ᾿Ιακώβ. 


7 Ap. i. 68. 


204 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


one knew! the Father,” and gives the final clause “ and 
to whom the Son may reveal Him;”? the Homilist ὃ 
likewise reverses the clauses, and reads “ knew” for 
“knoweth,” but gives the last clause * “to whomsoever 
the Son may will to reveal Him.” 

Thus the agreements and differences between Justin 
and the Clementines fairly balance each other, and we 
certainly cannot conclude that Justin depended on an 
uncanonical Gospel which was also used by the Homi- 
list, and which was the source of their variations from 
the canonical text. It is far more probable that the 
variations from the Gospel text which are scattered 
throughout these early writers are to be explained either 
by corruption of the current text, or by the copying of 
one writer by another, or by traditional modes of ex- 
pression which had arisen in the Church. Sometimes, 
also, the phenomena appear to present mere coinci- 
dences. In some instances these variations found their 
way into apocryphal Gospels ;° but the relation of Jus- 
tin’s text to that of such contemporaneous writings as 
we are able to compare with it does not by any means 


1 ἔγνω. In Dial. 100, Justin has γινώσκει. 

2 οἷς ἂν ὁ vids ἀποκαλύψῃ. 

8 Hom. xvii. 4; xviii. 4. 

4 οἷς ἐὰν βούληται ὁ vids ἀποκαλύψαι. Cf. note below. 

5 Thus, in the Protevangelium of James (6. 11), Luke i. 81, 32, 
35, and Matt. i. 21 are united as they are by Justin (Ap. i. 33). 
The Protevangelium also has the phrase “Thou shalt conceive ac- 
cording to His word,” and Justin (Ibid.) explains the “ power” 
which “overshadowed” Mary as the Logos. Tischendorf (“When 
were our Gospels written?” p. 88) thinks Justin used the Prot- 
evangelium; but the mingling of Matthew and Luke was too 
easy ‘to prove this, and the reference of the “ Word” in the 
Protevangelium was to prophecy, while Justin meant the personal 
Logos. The Protevangelium also (c. 18) places the birth of Jesus 
in a cave. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 205 


point to the use of an extra-canonical document, so that 
we may again affirm that the few instances in which he 
. differs from our text and agrees with other authors do not 
weaken the conclusion to which we have been already 
led, that his “memoirs” were identical with our Gospels. 


1 The evidence for Justin’s relation to the Clementines will 
appear more clearly by an examination of the following passages, 
which he has in common with the Homilies : — 

(1) Matt. iv. 10; Hom. viii. 21; Dial. 103,125. Justin agrees 
with Matthew. The Homilist has, “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy 
God (Κύριον τὸν θεόν cov φοβηθήσῃ καὶ αὐτῷ λατρεύσεις pove).” 

(2) Matt. v. 34,37; Hom. iii. 5; xix. 2; Ap.i.16. Justin and 
the Homilist agree. Both combine Jas. v. 12 with Matthew. 
Clement of Alexandria (Strom. v. 14) and Epiphanius (adv. Her. 
i. 20) also quote, “ Let your yea be yea,” etc., as Christ’s word. 
It was an easy error. See p. 202, note 3. 

(3) Matt. v. 39, 40 (Luke vi. 29); Hom. xv. 5; Ap. i. 16. 
Justin follows Luke mainly, but combines with Matthew. The 
Homilist gives a free recital rather than a precise quotation, but 
substitutes μαφόριον (a head covering) for χιτῶνα (tunic). 

(4) Matt. vi. 8,32; Hom. iii.55; Ap.i.15. Justin agrees with 
Matt. vi. 32, with variations. The Homilist combines Matt. vi. 8 
and 32. See p. 203. 

(5) Matt. vii. 15; Hom. xi. 35; Ap.i.16; Dial. 35. Justin, 
in Ap. i. 16, combines Matt. xxiv. 5 with vii. 15, 16, but with va- 
riations (Πολλοὶ yap ἥξουσιν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί pov, ἔξωθεν μὲν 
ἐνδεδυμένοι δέρματα προβάτων, ἔσωθεν δὲ ὄντες λύκοι 
ἅρπαγες" ἐκ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῶν ἐπιγνώσεσθε αὐτούς). So in Dial. 
35, except ἐλεύσονται (as Matt. xxiv. 5) for ἥξουσιν. The Homi- 
list has “πολλοὶ ἐλεύσονται πρός pe ἐν ἐνδύμασι προβάτων, ἔσωθεν 
δέ εἰσι λύκοι ἅρπαγες" ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν αὐτῶν ἐπιγνώσεσθε αὐτούς. 
Justin is thus here much freer in his quotation than the Homilist; 
but the latter, by introducing πρός pe, seems to show a reminis- 
cence of Matt. vii. 22 (πολλοὶ ἐροῦσίν μοι ἐν ἐκεινῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ κ-τ.λ.). 

(6) Matt. viii, 11; Hom. viii. 4; Dial. 76, 120, 140. Justin 
agrees with Matthew. The Homilist has ἐλεύσονται for ἥξουσιν, 
adds “from the North and the South,” substitutes ἀνακλιθήσονται 
εἰς κόλπους ᾿Αβραὰμ for ἀνακλιθήσονται μετὰ ᾿Αβραὰμ, and omits the 
last clause. See p. 203, notes 5 and 6. 

(7) Matt. x. 28 (Luke xii. 4); Hom. xvii.5; Ap.i.19. Justin 


206 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


(3) Our discussion, however, must take a further step 
before exhausting Justin's testimony to the Synoptic 


fustenes Matthew sed Lake, with varcstams taline tho See 
sentence rather from Lake; thus, My ᾧοβεῖσθε τοὺς ἀναεροῦν- 
Tas tga@s καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα μὴ δισαμένους τι ποιῆσαι. φοβήθητε 
δὲ τὰν μετὰ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν δισάμενον καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ σϑμα εἰς γέενναν 
ἐμβαλεν. The Homilisi, likewise, combines Matthew and Lake, 
bat follows Maiihew more closely, thouzh sill with variations, 
substitutes “him that Killeth (Le. the Demiurze)* for “them 
that ἘΠῚ" and adds “of fre;” thus, My Φοβηθητε ἀπὸ τοῦ ἄπο- 
erepurres τὸ σῶμα. τῇ δὲ ψυχῆ μὴ δυναμένου τι Toma φοβήθητε 
δὲ τὸν δευάμενον καὶ σῶμα καὶ Ψυχὴν εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρὸς 
ξολᾶν Nai λέγω Gulp, τοῦτον φοβόδητε. 

(8) Maiti τὶ 27; Hom xvii 4; xvii 4; Ap.i 63; Dial. 100. 
Jusim reverses the irsi two clauses; reads im his frst danse m 
the Apolozy. ἔγνεο: ἔπ the Dizlosue. γινώσκει: and gives the last 
clanse. ois & ᾧ vids ἀξοκαλέψη. The Homilisi likewise reverses the 
first two clamses: reads ἔγνι im the firsi, and gives the lasi clause 
(mearly as Matthew) ois ἄν βούληται 6 υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψαι. This 
sentence is variously quoted by writers of all types; and no imfer- 
ence for the exisience of am uncanonical documentary souree can 
be drawn from the agreement (such as ii is) between Jusiim and 
the Homilist m rezard to 1. See Wesicoii’s Canon, p. 120. See, 
especially. Ss a ese which the vee = pe 
adv. H=r. iv. 6. 

(2) Maiti. xix 16, 17 (Mark x. 18; Luke xvii 18, 19); Hom. 
πὶ 57; xviii 3; Ap. i 16; Dial. 101. In the Apolosy Justin 
agrees nearly with Mark and Lake, bui adds 6 ποιήσας τὰ πάντα: 
ἀτεερίνατο λέγων" Οὐδεὶς ἀγαθός. εἰ μὴ μόνος 6 θεὸς 6 ποιήσας τὰ 
πάντα. πος ς΄ --- 
and adds “My Father who is im heaven;” thus, λέγοντος aire 
voor Διδάσειλε ἄγαθέ. ἀξεερίνατο- Ti pe λέγεις ἀγαθόν; Eis ἐστιν 
ἀγαθός. 6 πατήρ μον ὁ ἐν tas οὔρανοῖς. The Homilist, in i. 57, 
has My pe λέγετε ἀγαθόν" ὁ γὰρ ἀγαθὸς cis ἐστιν. and in xviii. 3, 
ries saa 6 yap ἀγαθὸς εἷς ἐστιν. πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὖρα- 

The Marcosians also (Iren. i 20. 2) read the passage with 
‘iar seine but various additions were early made to the 
seeminsly incomplete text of Matthew. Marcion (Epiph adv. 
Har. xi) read “6 πατήρ." et eS ee 
read “6 πατήρ μον ὦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Origen (de Princip. i 5; 


. Ὺ 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 207 


Gospels. It is not only incredible on histori- πόαν: 

cal grounds that these latter should have re- asia Har- 

pas in the estimation of the Church the ΤΣ 
“memoirs” of which Justin speaks, but it is impossible 


adv. Cels. v. 11) read “6 θεὸς 6 πατήρ." Early Latin manuscripts 
and Syriac versions and later uncial manuscripts added “6 θεός." 
Nothing, therefore, can be inferred from Justin’s agreement with 
the Homilist, except that both followed a widely spread reading. 

(10) Matt. xxv. 41; Hom. xix. 2; Dial. 76. Justin substitutes 
ὑπάγετε for πορεύεσθε ; τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον for τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον: 
ὃ ἡτοίμασεν 6 πατήρ for τὸ ἡτοιμασαμένον ; and τῷ σατανᾷ for τῷ 
διαβόλῳ. So the Homilist, except that he retains διαβόλῳ. But 
both ὑπάγετε and 6 ἡτοίμασεν 6 πατήρ have ancient Western 
manuscript authority for them in Matthew. while τὸ σκότος τὸ 
ἐξώτερον is not without later attestation by confusion with e.¢. 
Matt. τ. 30 (see Westcott and Hort’s Notes on Select Readings, 
p- 18), and was an easy error. Textual corruption, therefore, 
will account for the texts both of Justin and of the Homilist. 
In Dial. 103, Justin says the devil was called Satan by Christ; 
hence, perhaps, his introduction of the word here. 

(11) Luke vi. 36; Hom. iii 37; Ap. i 15; Dial 96. Both 
Justin and the Homilist have “ χρηστοὶ καὶ oicrippoves;” but as 
Luke vi. 35 has “ χρηστός," the union of the two words was easy. 

(42) Luke xi. 51; Hom. iii. 18; Dial. 17. Justin says, “ Woe 
unto you, Scribes; for ye have the Keys (ras κλεῖς ἔχετε), and ye 
do not enter in yourselves, and them that are entering ye hinder” 
(τοὺς εἰσερχομένους κωλύετε). The Homilist speaks of the Seribes 
and Pharisees as having been intrusted with the key of the king- 
dom, which is knowledce, and adds, ᾿Αλλὰ vat. φησὶν Ge): κρατοῦσι 
μὲν τὴν κλεῖν. τοῖς δὲ βουλομένοις εἰσελθεῖν ot παρέχουσιν. 
refer to Luke, but in quite independent ways. 

(13) John it. 3,5; Hom. xi. 26; Ap.i6l. Both read aay 
»ηθῆτε and τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὔρανῶσ : but the Homilist adds. after 

, ὕδατι ζῶντε εἰς ὄνομα πατρὸς υἱοῦ ἅγέου πνεύματος. 
Βέεεοσ. vi. 9 has: Amen dico vobis, nisi quis denuo renatus fuerit 
ex aqua, non introibit in rezna eelorum. Both show John varied 
by fusion with Synoptists and by the influence of technical theo 
logical language. See below, on Justin and John. 

N.B. The above note is based on the list of parallel passages 
given by Westcott (Canon, p. 160), with some corrections and 
additions. 


208 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


on textual grounds to regard them as later recensions of 
the evangelical narrative witnessed to by Justin. For, 
as we have seen, his quotations bear all the marks of 
combination and addition. As the few statements of 
fact which he adds to the narrative of the Gospels are 
manifestly legendary accretions, so his textual peculiar- 
ities show as clearly a later stage of narration than our 
Gospels. To suppose that out of the evangelical account 
as represented by Justin, the Synoptic narratives were 
made, is to reverse all that we know of the tendencies 
of the second century as well as the laws of literary 
relationship. 

Justin, then, presupposes our Synoptic Gospels. But 
did he combine them himself in his own memory and 
recital, or did he follow in his combinations and vari- 
ations some previous work? He certainly testifies to 
their use by the Church; but is there any reason to be- 
lieve that in his quotations he followed a written form 
which was based upon them and yet varied from them 
in text, and which contained such slight additions to 
their historical matter as we have found in his state- 
ments? This is the view of Von Engelhardt! He 
supposes the existence of a brief Gospel Harmony, 
which was based chiefly on Matthew, and was a “ prac- 
tical aid for the use of the three evangelical writings,” 
and which had received some few legendary additions. 
From this he believes that Justin took his quotations 
and statements. This theory makes Justin testify not 
ἘΠῚ Τα δι merely to the existence of our Synoptics, 
sition not but also to the fact that they were already 
incredible. in his time so old and so well established 
as to have been made the foundation of a Harmony. 
The theory is certainly not in itself incredible. The 


1 Das Christenthum Justins, p. 345. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 209 


Diatessaron of Tatian may have had less complete 
predecessors. 

More recently, also, the attempt has been made by 
Dr. Charles Taylor! to show that Justin was acquainted 
with the substance of the lately recovered ane ied 
“Teaching of the Apostles ;” and he certainly the “ Teach- 
succeeds in pointing out a few striking points ὁ 
of contact between our Apologist and the earlier chap- 
ters of this ancient manual In any view Justin throws 


1 Cf., most recently, ‘“‘ The Expositor,” November, 1887. 

2 The most evident are the following. Ap.i.16: “The great- 
est commandment is, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and 
Him only shalt thou serve with all thy heart and with all thy 
strength, κύριον τὸν θεὸν τὸν ποιήσαντά σε. Cf. Ard. 1.: “ The 
way of life is this: first, thou shalt love τὸν θεὸν τὸν ποιήσαντά 
ge.” So Barn. c. 19: ᾿Αγαπήσεις τόν σε ποιήσαντα. In Dial. 93, 
Justin seems to show a knowledge of the negative form of the 
Golden Rule, and says: “He that loves his neighbor will both pray 
and endeavor that the same things may happen (γενέσθαι) to his 
neighbor as to himself.” Cf. Avd. i.: “ Secondly, thy neighbor as 
thyself: πάντα δὲ ὅσα ἐὰν θελήσῃς μὴ γίνεσθαί σοι καὶ σὺ ἄλλῳ μὴ 
ποίει. In Barnabas (19) we read, “Thou shalt not take evil 
counsel against thy neighbor,” and “ Thou shalt love thy neighbor 
more than [Cod. Sin. reads “as ”] thine own soul.” In Dial. 93, 
Justin unites the Great Commandments with the Golden Rule, as 
the “ Teaching ” does (c. i.), but as the Gospels do not. In Ap.i. 
15, we read, εὔχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶν ὑμῶν καὶ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς μισοῦν- 
τας ὑμᾶς καὶ εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμῖν, Which is not found 
precisely in the Gospels (Luke vi. 28 has τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς), 
but is found in the “ Teaching” (c. i.) in a different order, but 
in nearly the same words (προσεύχεσθε instead of εὔχεσθε). The 
“Teaching ” adds, however, “fast for those who persecute you.” 
Cf., also, Prof. Rendel Harris’s notes on p: 36 of his edition of the 
“Teaching” (“The Teaching of the Apostles, Newly Edited, 
with Fac-simile Text and a Commentary for the Johns Hopkins 
University,” Baltimore, 1887). He doubts whether we have any 
direct quotation from the “ Teaching” in Justin, yet thinks that 
Dial. 35 (“ From the fact that there are such men who call them- 
selves Christians and confess the crucified Jesus to be both Lord 

14 


210 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


not a little light upon the “ Teaching,” and the latter 
upon Justin. The relation, also, which exists between 
Justin and the so-called Epistle of Barnabas 1 is at least 
in favor of the Apologist’s knowledge of such a sum- 
mary of instructions as is found in the “ Teaching.” Yet 
the evidence for Justin’s use of the “Teaching” is, after 
all, very slight, and in even the passages where he con- 
nects with it he also differs from it. Of course, also, the 
“ Teaching” could not have been itself the source from 
which he derived his quotations, since it contains but 
few of them. It can only illustrate the supposition that 
he used a manual based on our Gospels. 

But it is a serious objection to this theory that we 
have no notice in early writers of the existence of such 
Objections ἃ Harmony. The “Teaching” was obviously 
tothetheory. not such; and even Tatian’s Diatessaron, 
written later in the century, does not appear to have 
been known in the early Western churches? More- 
over, Justin quotes differently in different places the 
same Gospel passages. Thus, in the Apology? he gives as 
Christ’s reply to the rich young man, “ None 18 good but 
and Christ, and yet do not teach His doctrines (μὴ τὰ ἐκείνου 
διδάγματα διδάσκοντες), . - . we, the disciples of the true and pure 
teaching of Jesus Christ (τῆς ἀληθινῆς ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ καθαρᾶς 
διδασκαλίας) are made more confident,” ete.) implies that Justin 
knew a written Διδαχὴ τοῦ κυρίου. But there is no reason to 
assert that it was a written Teaching. Again, he thinks that 
Dial. 111 (ὁ οὖν παθητὸς ἡμῶν καὶ σταυρωθεὶς Χριστὸς ov κατηράθη 
ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἀλλὰ μόνος σώσειν τοῦς μὴ ἀφισταμένους τῆς πίστεως 
αὐτοῦ ἐδήλου) was a “memory” of Acd. xvi. (τότε ἥξει ἡ κτίσις 
τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰς τὴν πύρωσιν τῆς δοκιμασίας καὶ σκανδαλισθήσονται 
πολλοὶ καὶ ἀπολοῦνται. οἱ δὲ ὑπομείναντες ἐν τῇ πίστει αὐτῶν σωθήσον- 
ται ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ καταθέματος) ; but the “curse” in the two pas- 
sages refers to very different things. 

1 Cf. Von Engelhardt’s Das Christenthum Justins, pp. 379, ete. 

2 Cf. Zahn’s Tatian’s Diatessaron, pp. 3-12. 

3 Ap. i. 16. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 211 


God alone, who made all things ;” in the Dialogue,! “Why 
callest thou me good ? One is good, my Father who is in 
heaven.” In the Apology? we read, “Thou shalt worship 
the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thow serve, with 
all thy heart and with all thy strength, the Lord God who 
made thee ;” in the Dialogue,? “ Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God with all thy heart and with all thy strength, 
and thy neighbor as thyself.’* It is, indeed, not impos- 
sible that some of the parallel passages in the Synoptic 
Gospels may have come to be traditionally harmonized. 
It is possible that Justin’s pen may have been some- 
times guided by the remembrance of expressions which 
were connected with the Gospel text in books used for 
purposes of instruction or worship in the Church. It is 
possible that in this may occasionally lie the explanation 
of his agreement in quotation with other uncanonical 
writers. But we think that the phenomena of his quo- 
tations are more consistent with the view that he cited 
freely and from memory. It is certain that if he used 
any other written document than our Gospels, that doc- 
ument was itself based upon the latter; but while the 
possibility of his occasional use of such a document 
cannot be positively denied, there appears to be need 
of assuming nothing but the Gospels themselves, al- 
lowance being made for the corruption of their texts, 
together with oral tradition and the operation of Jus- 
tin’s own mind, in order to account for the form of his 
quotations. 

are 01: 2A. 116; Bice 99. 

* So Ap. i. 16: “1 say unto you, Pray for your enemies,” etc., 
which agrees with Dial. 96 and 133, but differs from Dial. 85, where 
we read, “Jesus commanded us to Jove even our enemies.” Cf. 
also Ap. i. 15 (γίνεσθε δὲ χρηστοὶ καὶ οἰκτίρμονες κιτ.λ.) with Dial. 
96, and Ap. i. 16 (πολλοὶ δὲ ἐροῦσι pou: Κύριε, Κύριε x.7-A.) with 
Dial. 76, and Ap. i. 16 (ὃς γὰρ ἀκούει pov κ-τ.λ.} with Ap. i. 63, 
ete. 


212 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


(4) But whether Justin used a Harmony or not, his 
quotations testify not only to the existence, but also 
(4) His quo- ἕο the already considerable antiquity of our 
fhe'Senoptie Synoptic Gospels. They do this by the fact 
Gospéls that, as we have several times observed, they 


already an- 

cient books. contain what appear to be corruptions of the 
original text. They correspond not infrequently to 
“various readings” of the Gospels which are attested 
Textual by other early evidence, but which certainly 
corruption. were textual corruptions. Sometimes they 
agree with readings given by the Codex Beze ; some- 
times with readings given by “old Latin” manuscripts. 
The report, for example, which Justin gives of the words 
spoken from heaven at Christ’s baptism is found in 
Luke ii. 22, according to these very authorities Other 
examples of probable corruption may be found in the 
reference to the “ bloody sweat,’ which Justin explicitly 
says 7 was mentioned in the “memoirs,” but which 
Westcott and Hort expunge from Luke as a Western 
corruption ; 5 and in Justin’s evident dependence, in his 
account of the institution of the Eucharist, upon Luke 
xxii. 19 Ὁ, 20, although these verses appear to have 
been introduced into Luke from 1 Cor. xi. 23-254 He 
seems, also,> to show acquaintance with the verses which 

1 PD. and lat. mss. a, b, 6, ff,’ 1; cf. above, note, p. 185. 


2 Dial. 103. 

8 See Westcott and Hort’s New Testament Notes on Select 
Readings, p. 64. 

4 See Ibid., p. 63. Justin, however (Ap. i. 66), may have him- 
self combined 1 Cor. xi. 23, ete., with his remembrance of the ac- 
count in the “ memoirs; ” ef. “the Apostles in the Memoirs com- 
posed by them, which are called Gospels, οὕτως παρέδωκαν ἐντετάλθαι 
aitois* τὸν Ἰησοῦν λαβόντα ἄρτον x.t.d.,” with 1 Cor. xi. 23, ἐγὼ 
yap παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν x.7.X. 

5 Ap. i. 45 (τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ ὃν ἀπὸ ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ οἱ ἀπόστο- 
λοι αὐτοῦ ἐξελθόντες πανταχοῦ ἐκήρυξαν) compared with Mark xvi. 
15-18. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 213 


were early added as a conclusion to Mark’s Gospel. We 
do not mean that Justin’s text is now represented in its 
entirety by any one manuscript or class of manuscripts, 
but that he gives evidence of that corruption of the 
canonical texts which, according to abundant testimony, 
took place even in the century immediately succeeding 
that in which they were written, and which most plainly 
appears in those manuscripts which textual critics have 
classified as “Western.” If, however, this be so, then 
Justin not only testifies that our Synoptic Gospels 
existed in his day, and were used by the Church as 
public documents, and were regarded as apostolic and 
authoritative records of the life of Christ, but he also 
proves, by the incidental character of his quotations and 
by their very variations from the text of our Gospels, 
that these latter were in the middle of the second cen- 
tury already ancient books, handed down from the apos- 
tolic age. No more explicit testimony to our Synoptic 
Gospels could well be asked of him; and the very diffi- 
culties which at first sight present themselves in his 
quotations, in the end confirm his evidence for their 
apostolic authority. 


II. So far we have said nothing of Justin’s rela- 
tion to the Fourth Gospel. The vast majority of his 
evangelical references were undoubtedly de- seers gates 
rived from the first three Gospels; and as the Fourth 
we have seen, he testifies plainly to their ἔτ 
antiquity and established use in the Church. But what 
witness does he bear to that other Gospel which we 
find in the next generation placed by all the Church 
side by side with the Synoptics as their apostolic 
complement ? 

It may be fairly said that Justin’s use of the Fourth 


214 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


Gospel is now generally admitted. The views of the 
early Tiibingen critics, which placed the composition of 
His use of it that Gospel in the middle or even in the sec- 
allyadmit- 00d halt of the second century, have been gen- 
feds erally abandoned. The historical evidence 
for its existence and use has gradually pushed the date 
assigned for its origin farther back. Critics, of course, 
still differ among themselves ; but few will be now found 
who do not assign it to a date considerably earlier than 
the writings of Justin. In fact, from the rationalistic 
side has come of late the most energetic assertion of 
Thoma’s  vustin’s use of it. Albrecht Thoma? goes to 
τς the extreme limit in maintaining the influence 
of this Gospel on our Apologist. He declares that their 
relation is such as to amount to “a literary community 
of goods.” He holds that Justin comments on and am- 
plifies the statements of the Fourth Gospel. At the 
same time he declares that Justin never formally quotes 
from it ; that he never uses it as historical material, but 
even avoids doing so; that he did not include it among 
“the memoirs of the Apostles,’ and therefore did not 
believe in its apostolic authorship; in short, that to 
Justin the Fourth Gospel was a book of doctrine, not of 
history, with whose forms of thought and expression he 
was saturated, but which he and the Church were far 
from regarding as a trustworthy narrative of Christ’s life. 
Dr. Abbott's Similar views have also been advocated in 
views. England by Dr. Edwin A. Abbott, who main- 
tains that while Justin was acquainted either with the 
Fourth Gospel or with the “ Ephesian tradition” out of 
which the Gospel grew, he carefully avoided citing it as 


1 Justins literarisches Verhiltniss zu Paulus und zum Johan- 
nes-Evangelium: Zeitschr. fiir wissensch. Theol., 1875. See, also, 
his Die Genesis des Johannes-Evangelium, 1882. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. ots 


he cites the “memoirs,” and did not regard it as apos- 
tolic or authoritative. 

So far as Justin’s use of the Fourth Gospel is con- 
cerned, Thoma errs, we think, both in many fyidence for 


: i ap - . Justin's use 
instances where he affirms it, and in several ‘ff. ἘΣΤΕ 


where he denies it;? and similarly strained Gospel. 


1 See “Justin’s Use of the Fourth Gospel,” Modern Review, 
July and October, 1882. Dr. Abbott summarizes the results of 
his study, thus: “ That (1) Justin knew of the existence of the 
Gospel or parts of the Gospel in some form; (2) he never avow- 
edly quotes it as a Gospel or as authoritative ; (3) although it is 
one of his main purposes to prove Christ’s divinity and pre-exist- 
ence previous to the incarnation, he yet never borrows thoughts 
or arguments from that Gospel which alone enunciates these doc- 
trines; (4) although he agrees with the Fourth Gospel in iden- 
tifying the Logos with Christ, he differs from the Gospel, and 
approximates to the Jewish philosopher Philo in his expression 
of his views of the Logos; (5) where he treats of topics pecu- 
liar to the Fourth Gospel (as distinguished from the Synoptics), 
namely, the mystery of the brazen serpent and the appearance 
of God to Abraham, he differs from the Gospel and agrees with 
Philo; (6) in all these points, and especially in his doctrine of 
the Logos, his doctrine is more Alexandrine and less Christian, 
or, in other words, less developed than that of the Gospel; (7) he 
repeatedly associates references to the Fourth Gospel with teach- 
ing from apocryphal or traditional sources; (8) even where he 
is said by modern critics to be ‘remembering’ or ‘referring to’ 
passages in Saint John’s Gospel, it is admitted by these same crit- 
ics that he never quotes those passages, but quotes the Synop- 
tists by preference ; (9) even when he declares that he will show 
how Jesus ‘revealed’ His pre-existence and divinity, he quotes 
the words of Jesus, not from the Fourth Gospel, but from those 
Gospels which, as Canon Westcott truly says, ‘do not declare 
Christ’s pre-existence.’”” The truth or falsity of these criticisms 
will appear as we proceed. 

2 Thus, for example, when Justin (Dial. 53), speaking of 
Christ’s entry into Jerusalem, sees in the ass a symbol of Jews 
and in the colt a symbol of the as yet untrained Gentiles, Thoma 
finds acquaintance with the fact mentioned immediately after the 
entry in John xii. 20, that certain Greeks desired to see Jesus. 


216 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


references have been pointed out by others; but the 
fact of his use of it may be said to have been demon- 
ae | strated. First of all, we would maintain that 
ductrine of Justin’s doctrine of the Logos presupposes 

acquaintance with that of the Fourth Gospel. 
As we found in the last lecture, Justin’s doctrine is 
strongly tinctured by philosophy; that of the Fourth 
Gospel is markedly devoid of this; and it would be 
a strange phenomenon, if, at a time when such influ- 
ences as those which Justin shows were abroad in the 
Church, a work were composed, involving the same theme, 
but without the impress of the prevailing philosophy. 
Moreover, Justin’s theory, while influenced by philoso- 
phy, differed essentially from Philo’s in precisely those 
points which he had in common with the Fourth Gospel. 
Everything, however, is against the supposition that he 
knew himself to be introducing novelties into Christian 
doctrine. He not only declares his beliefs to be those of 
the Church,? but in his theology the philosophical and 
Christian elements often conflict, showing that he tried 
to build on that which he had received. Some Chris- 
tian authority is required to provide the basis on which 
Justin argued, and the Fourth Gospel alone supplies 
this. Thus, because the Fourth Gospel lacks the philo- 
sophical element found in Justin but contains the Chris- 


So when Justin (Dial. 97) quotes from Isa. lvii. 2, “I stretch out 
my hands to an unbelieving and gainsaying people,” Thoma finds 
it suggested by John xii. 32, 33, “TI, if I be lifted up, will draw,” 
ete. Justin does indeed understand Isaiah to refer to the eruci- 
fixion, but there is surely no need to assume a reference to John’s 
narrative. Critics have repeatedly refused such evidence of liter- 
ary dependence when used by “ apologists.” 

1 See the passages cited, and sometimes successfully refuted, by 
Dr. Abbott; 6. g., pp. 723 (5), 725 (7), 730, 733, ete. 

2 See Lect. VI. ® See Lectt. IV. and VL 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 7 


tian element on which his philosophizing theology 
rested, it cannot be regarded as the further development 
of the movement of thought represented by Justin, but 
must be regarded as an earlier authority from which the 
Apologist partly diverged, but on which at the same time 
he built. This general fact creates of itself the pre- 
sumption that Justin was not only acquainted with the 
Gospel, but also accepted its doctrine as apostolic. 
Passing, however, this general consideration, let us 
turn to the literary evidence for Justin’s use of the 
Fourth Gospel, apart from those passages prom titerary 
which involve the question of his direct ci- coimeidences. 
tation of it. ‘This evidence consists of certain words or 
phrases which are so similar to the language of the 
Gospel as, when taken all together, to create a strong 
probability that they were derived from it. He calls 
Christ “the only spotless and just Light sent to men from 
God.”* Christ is “ the only begotten” of the Father, —a 


1 The reversal of this general argument appears to be Dr. 
Abbott’s fundamental error. He insists that the Fourth Gospel 
was the complete and self-consistent Christian elaboration of the 
philosophical ideas received from Alexandrianism and partially 
worked up by Justin. Justin, therefore, represents a middle stage 
between Philo and the Fourth Gospel. But the philosophical 
movement shown in Justin certainly did not tend to throw off 
philosophy, but just the contrary; and hence the production by 
it of the Fourth Gospel is incredible. It is far more in accord- 
ance with the known tendency of the age to suppose that the Gos- 
pel preceded the philosophical movement in the Church; which 
movement took that Gospel for its point of departure, but actu- 
ally departed from its views or reproduced them imperfectly. 

esides, the evidence of Basilides (Hippol. Refut. vii. 10) and of 
Ireneus (adv. Her. iii. 11), if not of Polycarp (ad Phil. vii., since 
the Gospel and the First Epistle stand and fall together) and Pa- 
pias (see Dr. Lightfoot’s article, “ Papias,” Contemporary Review, 

October, 1875), is decisive for the earlier date for the Gospel. 
2 Dial. 17. κατὰ οὖν τοῦ μόνου ἀμώμου καὶ δικαίου φωτός, τοῖς 


218 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


term applied to Him in the New Testament only by the 
Fourth Evangelist and in the First Epistle of John1 He 
is “the good Rock which causes living water to break out 
Jrom the hearts of those who through Him have loved the 
Father of all, and who gives to drink to those who will the 
water of life.’* “We from Christ who begat us unto 
God are both called and are the true children of God, who 
keep the commandments of Christ.’? “δ that knoweth 
not Him [i. 6. Christ], knoweth not the counsel of God; 
and he that revileth and hateth Him, manifestly revileth 
and hateth Him that sent Him.’* It was predicted that 


ἀνθρώποις πεμφθέντος παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ κιτιλ. True, Justin has just 
quoted Isa. ν. 20, “ Woe to you who make light darkness and 
darkness light;” but his language is at least in striking accord 
with John i. 9; viii. 12; xii. 46, ete. 

1 Dial. 105. Movoyevns yap ὅτι ἦν τῷ πατρὶ των ὅλων οὗτος, ἰδίως 
ἐξ αὐτοῦ λόγος καὶ δύναμις γεγεννημένος κατιλ. So ΑΡ. 1. 23. I. X. 
μόνος ἰδίως υἱὸς τῷ θεῷ γεγέννηται. Ap. ii. θΘ. ὁ μόνος λεγόμενος 
κυρίως υἱός. The fact that Justin does not cite John to prove the 
generation of the Logos does not invalidate the evidence of his 
language for his acquaintance with John’s Gospel. 

2 Dial. 114. ὡς καὶ χαίρειν ἀποθνήσκοντας διὰ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ τῆς 
καλῆς πέτρας καὶ ζῶν ὕδωρ ταῖς καρδίαις τῶν δι΄ αὐτοῦ ἀγαπησάν- 
τῶν τὸν πατέρα τῶν ὅλων βρυούσης καὶ ποτιζούσης τοὺς βουλομένους 
τὸ τῆς ζωῆς ὕδωρ πιεῖν. See dohniv.10; νἱῖ. 88; Rev. vi.17; 
Xxi. 6. 

8 Dial. 128. οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ γεννήσαντος ἡμᾶς εἰς θεὸν 
χριστοῦ... καὶ θεοῦ τεκνα ἀληθινὰ καλούμεθα καὶ ἐσμέν, 
οἱ τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ χριστοῦ φυλάσσοντες. See John i. 12; xiv. 15; 
and, still more, 1 John 111. 1,2; v.2. Abbott (p. 736) argues that 
Justin and the First Epistle borrowed from a common source, 
and appeals to the antithesis made by Philo between “ being ” 
and “being called,” and to the natural exhortation of the Chris- 
tians to one another to be not merely “ called,’ but to be God’s 
children. But this is merely an effort to escape from the evident 
coincidence of Justin’s and John’s language. The whole phrase, 
“ θεοῦ . . . φυλάσσοντες," is Johannean in all its parts. 

4 Dial. 136. Ὁ yap τοῦτον ἀγνοῶν ἀγνοεῖ καὶ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ 
θεοῦ καὶ ὁ τοῦτον ὑβρίζων καὶ μισῶν καὶ τὸν πέμψαντα δηλονότι καὶ 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 219 


Christ would rise from the dead, “which,” adds Justin, 
“he has received from His Father.’! Moses said to the 
people, when he erected the brazen serpent, “If ye look 
to this image and believe in it, ye shall be saved.” 2 So 
the statement, “The true God and His Son and the pro- 
phetic Spirit we worship and adore, honoring them in 
reason and truth,’ certainly must remind us of John 
iv. 24, “They that worship Him must worship Him in 
spirit and truth,” “spirit” being changed to “reason” 
quite after Justin’s habit of speech. The argument, also, 
against Judaizing — that God governs the world on the 
Sabbath as on other days — is at least in striking agree- 
ment with Christ’s reply to the Jews, “My Father 
worketh hitherto.”* So, where Justin says of the Logos 


μισεῖ καὶ ὑβρίζει. See John v. 23. Justin merely intensifies John’s 
expression. He adds, also, καὶ εἰ οὐ πιστεύει τις εἰς αὐτόν, οὐ πισ- 
τεύει τοῖς τῶν προφητῶν κηρύγμασι τοῖς αὐτὸν εὐαγγελισαμένοις καὶ 
κηρύξασιν εἰς πάντας, with which compare John v. 46. 

1 Dial. 100. ὃ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ λαβὼν ἔχει. See John. x. 
18. ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν ἔλαβον παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς pov. Dr. Abbott 
(Ρ. 724) mistakes Justin’s purpose in immediately quoting Matt. 
xi. 27. Justin regarded the saying in Matthew as a general state- 
ment (πάντα) of the particular fact reported by John. Hence 
his quotation of the former does not invalidate the evidence of his 
language that he remembered John x. 18. 

2 Ap. i. 60. ᾿Αναγέγραπται .. . λαβεῖν τὸν Μωύσέα χαλκὸν καὶ 
ποιῆσαι τύπον σταυροῦ... καὶ εἰπεῖν τῷ λαῷ ἐὰν προσβλέπητε τῷ 
τύπῳ τούτῳ καὶ πιστεύητε ἐν αὐτῷ, σωθήσεσθε. So, also, Dial. 94. 
See John iii. 15. Abbott (p. 575) quotes Philo (Allegories, ii. 
20): “If the mind, when bitten by Pleasure, Eve’s serpent, is able 
to discern with the soul the beauty of Temperance, the serpent 
of Moses, and, through this, God Himself, he will live;” but this 
is insufficient to account for Justin’s application of the brazen 
serpent to Christ crucified and his emphasis on πιστευήτε. 

8 Ap. i. 6. λόγῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ τιμῶντες. 

4 Dial. 29. See John νυ. 17. Abbott *(p. 577) quotes Philo 
(Allegories, i. 155): “ That which rests is one thing only, God. 
But by rest I do not mean inaction, since that which is by nature 


220 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


that “He has never done or said anything but what He 
who made the universe . . . has willed Him to do and 
speak,” we remember Christ’s declaration reported by 
the fourth Evangelist, “I did not speak of myself, but 
the Father who sent me, He hath given me a command- 
ment what I should say and what I should speak;”? and 
Justin’s use of the same participle which the Fourth 
Gospel employs to designate the “sending” of Christ 
by the Father into the world — a usage which is pecu- 
liar to that Gospel among the books of the New Testa- 
ment — is a point of evidence none the less strong for 
being small? The fact, likewise, that he five times 


active, that which is the Cause of all things, can never desist 
from doing what is most excellent.” But not only is the applica- 
tion of the thought the same in both Justin and John, but Justin 
adds, “‘ and the priests, as on other days, so on this, are ordered to 
offer sacrifices,” which is so evidently an echo of Matt. xii. 5, that 
the presumption is that in the previous clause, also, he follows an 
evangelical authority. 

1 Dial. 56. οὐδὲν γάρ φημι αὐτὸν πεπραχέναι ποτὲ ἢ ὡμιληκέναι 
[ἢ ὧμιλ. is wanting in the manuscripts, but restored by Otto] 
ἢ ἅπερ αὐτὸν ὁ τὸν κόσμον ποιήσας, ὑπὲρ ὃν ἄλλος οὐκ ἔστι θεός, 
βεβούληται καὶ πρᾶξαι καὶ ὁμιλῆσαι. See John xii. 49. Abbott 
(Ρ. 723) says that Justin’s language was a natural remark, in or- 
der to guard against a polytheistic inference from the doctrine of 
the Logos; which is true, but does not invalidate the inference 
to be drawn from the agreement of his thoughts with that of the 
Fourth Gospel. Nor is this inference invalidated by Justin’s use 
of ὁμιλεῖν ; for it is characteristic of him to deviate freely from 
the terminology of even those New Testament books which he 
certainly knew. 

2 Dial. 17. “The only spotless and just Light, τοῖς ἀνθρώποις 
πεμφθέντος παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ." 91. “Fly for refuge τῷ τὸν ἐσταυρωμέ- 
νον υἱὸν αὐτοῦ πέμψαντι εἰς τὸν κόσμον. 136. “ He that revileth 
and hateth Christ manifestly revileth and hateth τὸν πέμψαντα. 
140. κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντος αὐτὸν πατρός. The word is a 
favorite with the author of the Fourth Gospel, and is used by him 
twenty-five times of the Father “sending” the Son. Elsewhere 
in the New Testament it is thus applied but once (Rom. viii. 3), 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 221 


quotes or refers to Zech. xii. 10, as it is quoted in 
John xix. 87,— “ They shall look on Him whom they 
pierced,” — is perhaps a similar indication of his use of 
the Gospel which ought not to go uncounted Finally,” 


or, at most, twice (see Luke xx. 13). In Ap. i. 63, Justin says 
Christ is called ἀπόστολος, for he ἀποστέλλεται to reveal, ete.; but 
the verb was here obviously chosen to correspond to the noun, as 
in turn the noun was chosen because of the verb in Luke x. 16, 
which Justin quotes. Abbott (p. 730) admits that Justin’s use of 
πέμψας shows “that he was in sympathy with the later traditions 
embodied in [the Fourth] Gospel.” Why not admit that he was 
acquainted with that Gospel ? 

1 See Ap. i. 52; Dial. 14, 32, 64,118. Abbott (p. 722) says 
that ἐκκεντεῖν is actually introduced in the passage of Zechariah 
by the versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, of which 
the first was written in the first half of the second century. He 
refers also to Rev. i. 7, as making it probable that this reading 
existed before the second century. Probably he would be right 
in saying that “this passage is useless as a proof that Justin 
copied the Fourth Gospel,” if this item of evidence stood alone; 
but taken with the other items it may be fairly mentioned. 

2 The following additional items of evidence for Justin’s ac- 
quaintance with the Fourth Gospel are worth noting : — 

(a) Ap.i.16 (ὃς yap ἀκούει pov καὶ ποιεῖ ἃ λέγω, ἀκούει τοῦ ἀποσ- 
τείλαντός με) and ΑΡ. 1. 63 (ὁ ἐμοῦ ἀκούων, ἀκούει τοῦ ἀποστείλαντός 
pe) may imply acquaintance with John xiv. 24, besides Matt. vii. 
24, x. 40, or Luke vi. 47, x. 16. 

(b) Ap. i. 33 (“God revealed beforehand, through the pro- 
phetie Spirit, that these things would happen, i” ὅταν γένηται μὴ 
ἀπιστηθῇ ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ προειρῆσθαι πιστευθῇ ᾽) is perhaps an echo 
of John xiv. 29, καὶ νῦν εἴρηκα ὑμῖν πρῖν γενέσθαι, ἵνα ὅταν γένηται 
πιστεύσητε. 

(c) When Justin (Ap. 1. 63) quotes Matt. xi. 27, “ No one knew 
the Father save the Son,” ete., to show that Jesus charged the 
Jews with ignorance of God, Keim (Gesch. Jesu v. Naz., i. 139, 
quoted by Otto) and Ezra Abbot (Authorship of the Fourth Gos- 
pel, p. 45) think he had in mind, also, John viii. 19 or xvi. 3. 

(d) Justin’s explanation (Ap. i. 11) of the kingdom which the 
Christians expect, as not ἀνθρώπινον, but τὴν pera θεοῦ, reminds 
of Christ’s reply to Pilate (John xviii. 36, “ My kingdom is not of 
this world,” etc.) ; while his whole conception of Christianity as 


222, JUSTIN MARTYR. 


as Thoma shows, the prologue of the Fourth Gospel was 
evidently in Justin’s mind, and formed the basis of his 


. theologizing, though he reproduces neither its language 


nor its doctrine accurately. If the Gospel says “In the 


beginning was the Logos,” Justin says that the Logos 


“was begotten as a Beginning before all creatures.” 1 
If the Gospel says “the Logos was with God,” Justin 
says “the Logos before the creatures both being with 
Him and being begotten.”? If the Gospel says “the 


_ Logos was God,” Justin also repeatedly calls Him God,* 


yet gives the doctrine a different turn from the Gospel 
when he says, for example, “ Who, being the Logos and 
first-begotten of God, is also God.” * So, if we read in 


“the truth,” and of Christ’s mission as one sent to teach (see Ap. 
i. 6, 13, 23, etc.), is in the spirit of Christ’s words in John xviii. 37 
(“ For this end was I born,” etc.). 

Thoma (p. 542) insists that because Justin does not, though 
quoting Zech. xii. 10 according to John xix. 37, mention the sol- 
dier’s lance-thrust, he shows that he did not regard the Fourth 
Gospel as reliable history. But in all the five places where Zech. 
xii. 10 is quoted or referred to, Justin applies it to the second 
advent, and does not enter on any explanation of its separate 
clauses. 

1 Dial. 62. ὅτι καὶ ἀρχὴ πρὸ πάντων τῶν ποιημάτων τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ 
καὶ γέννημα ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐγεγέννητο. See also Rey. iii. 14. ἡ ἀρχὴ 
τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ. But Justin probably departed from John’s 
language under the influence of philosophy. 

2 John i. 1 has ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν. Justin has (Ap. ii. 6) 
ὁ λόγος πρὸ τῶν ποιημάτων καὶ συνὼν καὶ γεννώμενος and (Dial. 62) 
ἀλλὰ τοῦτο τὸ τῷ ὄντι ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς προβληθὲν γέννημα πρὸ πάντων 
τῶν ποιημάτων συνῆν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τούτῳ ὁ πατὴρ προσομιλεῖ. JUS- 
tin’s use οὗ σύνειμι is another indication of the influence of philos- 
ophy on him. 

8 Dial. 34, 36, 37, 56, 58, 63, 76, 86, etc. 

4 John i. 1 has θεὸς ἣν ὁ λόγος. Justin (Ap. i. 63), ds λόγος Kat 
πρωτότοκος ὧν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ θεὸς ὑπάρχει. Justin’s expression tries 
to explain the ground of the deity of the Logos. It shows, again, 
a mind under philosophic influences reasoning on the fact stated 
in the Gospel. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 223 


the Gospel “all things were made through Him,” Jus- 
tin declares that God “created and ordered all things 
through Him.” If the Gospel sets forth the Logos as 
having life which “was the light of men,” and as “the 
true light which lighteth every man that cometh into 
the world,” Justin has the doctrine of the Seminal Logos 
“of whom every race partakes,” ? and calls Christ “ that 
spotless and just Light sent from God to men.”? If 
the Gospel teaches that “the Logos became flesh,” Jus- 
tin, likewise, not only teaches the real incarnation of 
the Logos, but emphasizes the idea that this was His 
voluntary act. If the Gospel calls Him “the only 
begotten of the Father,” Justin calls Him “the only 
begotten of the Father of all;” ® while the expression in 
the Gospel, “No one hath seen God at any time; the 
only begotten Son [or God] who is in the bosom of the 
Father, He hath revealed Him,’ is echoed in Justin’s 


1 John i. 8. πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο. Ap. ii. 6. dre τὴν ἀρχὴν 
δύ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε καὶ ἐκόσμησε. So. i. 64. τὸν θεὸν διὰ λόγου 
τὸν κόσμον ποιῆσαι. ‘The fact that in Ap. i. 59 Justin writes, 
“λόγῳ θεοῦ the world was made,” does not destroy the evidence, 
from his more careful use elsewhere of διὰ λόγου, that the latter 
expresses his real doctrine, though it may show again (Abbott, 
p- 566) the influence of Alexandrianism. 

2 Ap. i. 46; cf. Lect. IV. 8. Dialed 7 

4 Justin, indeed, nowhere says that the Logos σὰρξ éyévero. He 
writes that He “became man” (see Ap.i. 5, 23, γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος ; 
Ap. il. 6, ἄνθρωπος γέγονε). But he declares that He was capxo- 
ποιηθεὶς, and that He σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ἔσχεν (Ap. i. 66), σαρκοποι- 
ηθεὶς ἄνθρωπος γέγονεν (Ap. i. 32), σαρκοποιηθεὶς ὑπέμεινεν γεννη- 
θῆναι through the Virgin (Dial. 45), that τὸν πρωτότοκον τῶν 
πάντων ποιημάτων σαρκοποιηθέντα ἀληθῶς παιδίον γενέσθαι (Dial. 
84); and that σαρκοποιηθείς, ἄνθρωπος ὑπέμεινε γενέσθαι. So he 
teaches that the Logos incarnated Himself in the Virgin (see Ap. 
i. 5 and, especially, 33. The Power which “overshadowed” Mary 
was the Logos). 

5 Dial. 105. 


224 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


doctrine of the invisibility and transcendence of the 
Father, and in the place which he assigns to the Logos 
both in communion with the Father and in the revela- 
tion of the Father to the world 

These examples of the evidence for Justin’s acquaint- 
ance with the Fourth Gospel will suffice. Exception 
Sid) θα θα, be taken to this or that item; but tak- 
this evi- ing all together, it would seem impossible to 
cere avoid the conclusion that, as Thoma states it, 
there was a “literary community of goods” between the 
two writers. Nor, even at this stage of the argument, 
can we be satisfied with the view that Justin was 
merely acquainted with the “ Ephesian tradition” out 
of which the Fourth Gospel is alleged to have sprung. 
The literary coincidences are too many not to imply the 
Apologist’s use of the written Gospel itself. Moreover, 
as already observed, Justin’s divergences of phraseology 
and of idea, even when in closest contact with the 
Gospel, are far more easily explained by the assump- 
tion that his philosophical theology proceeded from the 
Fourth Gospel as a basis than that the Fourth Gospel 
was a later and purified version of the philosophical 
theology which Justin represents. The latter hy- 
pothesis supposes that the philosophical movement in 
the early Church eradicated from itself the philosophical 
element, which is wholly incredible. Once assume the 
non-philosophical Logos-Gospel as an established Chris- 
tian authority, and the union of philosophy and Chris- 
tianity which Justin shows as existing in the orthodox 
Church of the post-apostolic age, and which, as Justin 
also shows, departed from the ideas of the Fourth Gospel 
though building on it, becomes perfectly comprehen- 
sible; and this is the natural inference to be drawn 


1 Dial. 61, 62; see Lect. IV. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 295 


from the marks of literary relationship between that 
Gospel and our Apologist. Those marks show on the 
one hand Justin’s use of the Gospel, and on the other 
hand his attempts to explain it. This is precisely the 
literary phenomenon which from the relations of the 
thought of the two writers we should expect to find. 

We are prepared, then, for the further question, How 
did Justin use the Fourth Gospel? Assuming that he 
was acquainted with it and that he more or ον aia he 
less faithfully followed its cardinal ideas, we 0 the. 
are yet asked if he regarded it as apostolical pel? 
and authoritative. Thoma, Abbott, and others assert 
that he never directly quotes it, that he never uses its 
historical material, that he did not reckon it among the 
“memoirs,” and consequently could not have held it to 
be the work of the Apostle John. 

To this, however, we reply : — 

(1) That Justin in a few instances does )Η 
clearly seem to use the historical narrative of fr eae 
the Fourth Gospel. aa 

Thus, he states! that men supposed John the Baptist 
to be Christ, but “he cried to them, J am not the Christ, 
but the voice of one crying ; for He that is stronger than 
me shall come, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear.” 
Now, while Luke iii. 15 states that the people “mused 
in their hearts of John whether he were the Christ or 
not,’ and while all three Synoptists quote the words of 
Isaiah (“The Voice of one crying in the wilderness,” etc.) 
and apply them to John, the Fourth Gospel alone puts 
them, as Justin does so far as he quotes them, into 
John’s mouth.” 


1 Dial. 88. 
2 See John i. 20, 23. The fact that in this same chapter of 
the Dialogue Justin inserts traditions as well as facts taken from 
15 


226 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


Again, Justin states that Christ healed those “who 
were from birth and in body blind and deaf and lame; 
making one to leap, and another to hear, and another 
to see,” —a statement which, as we have already seen, 
is not entirely accurate, but which is most easily ex- 
plained as arising from Justin’s remembrance of the 
fourth Evangelist’s account of the man born blind!’ In 
the same connection, also, we read that the Jews called 
Christ “a magician and a deceiver of the people.’ The 
latter phrase corresponds most nearly with the charge 
(John vii. 12), “Nay, but he deceiveth the people,” 
though it may possibly have been suggested by Matt. 
xxvil. 63, “That deceiver said, when he was yet alive.’ 

Still again, when Justin, expounding the Twenty- 
second Psalm, declares that the latter part of it de- 
scribes how Christ before His crucifixion “knew that 


the “memoirs” does not (Abbott, p. 716) show that he regarded 
the Fourth Gospel as on a level with tradition, nor does the ques- 
tion of how the Fourth Gospel came to put these words into 
John’s mouth affect the fact that Justin used its account as his- 
torical. Like the Fourth Gospel, also, Justin treats of John’s 
witness to Christ rather than of his preparatory work among the 
people. 

1 Dial. 69. τοὺς ἐκ γενετῆς καὶ κατὰ THY σάρκα πηροὺς καὶ κωφοὺς 
καὶ χωλοὺς ἰάσατο, τὸν μὲν ἅλλεσθαι, τὸν δὲ καὶ ἀκούειν, τὸν δὲ καὶ ὁρᾶν 
τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ ποιήσας. Evidently Justin used πηροὺς in the sense 
of “blind.” So Ap. i. 22. ᾧ δὲ λέγομεν χωλοὺς καὶ παραλυτικοὺς 
καὶ ἐκ γενετῆς πονηροὺς ὑγιεῖς πεποιηκέναι αὐτὸν καὶ νεκροὺς ἀναγεῖραι 
κιτιλ. Here ἐκ γενετῆς qualifies πονηροὺς alone, which Justin prob- 
ably used in the same sense as πηροὺς in Dial. 69 (if, indeed, the 
latter should not be substituted for it. See above, p. 185, note 2). 
John ix. 1: τυφλὸν ἐκ γενετῆς. So Apost. Const. v. 7, referring to 
the miracle of John ix., speaks of Christ as τὸ λεῖπον μέρος ἐν τῷ 
ἐκ γενετῆς πηρῷ ἐκ γῆς καὶ σιέλου ἀποδοῦς ; and Clem. Hom. xix. 
22 has, ὅθεν καὶ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν περὶ τοῦ ἐκ γενετῆς πηροῦ K.T-A. 

2 Dial. 69. καὶ γὰρ μάγον εἶναι αὐτὸν ἐτόλμων λέγειν καὶ λαο- 
πλάνον. John vii. 12. Οὔ, ἀλλὰ πλανᾷ τὸν ὄχλον. Matt. xxvii. 63. 
ὁ πλάνος εἶπεν ἔτι ζῶν. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. DON 


His Father would give all things to Him as He asked, 
and would raise Him from the dead,” we note at least 
a striking coincidence with the fourth Evangelist’s rec- 
ord, that on the night of His betrayal Jesus, “knowing 
that the Father had given all things into His hands, and 
that He came from God and went to God,” rose from 
supper and proceeded to wash the disciples’ feet ;1 and 
if the reference be allowed, it certainly implies accept- 
ance of the narrative as well as of the doctrine of the 
Evangelist. 

These are, to be sure, slight indications, but they 
accumulate evidence for the use of the Fourth Gospel’s 
historical matter. Discourses form so large a part of 
that Gospel that it should not surprise us to find Jus- 
tin’s narrative taken almost wholly from the other three ; 
and slight indications, such as these which have been 
given, are aS much as under the circumstances we 
should expect. 

(2) Their testimony, however, is confirmed by what 
we cannot but consider, in spite of all the criticisms 
tending to a contrary result, a direct quotation (2) He di- 
from the Fourth Gospel, and that a quotation jets quotes 


it as an au- 


of such a form as to demonstrate practically forty for 


not only Justin’s use of the Gospel’s narra- teaching. 

tive, but also his acceptance of it as apostolic. 
Speaking of baptism, he writes : “ For also Christ said, 

unless ye be born again [or regenerated], ye shall not 


1 Dial. 106. καὶ ὅτι ἠπίστατο τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ πάντα παρέχειν 
αὐτῷ, ὡς ἠξίου. καὶ ἀνεγερεῖν αὐτὸν ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν... . τὰ λείποντα 
τοῦ Ψαλμοῦ ἐδήλωσεν. John xiii. 3: εἰδὼς ὅτι πάντα ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ 
ὁ πατὴρ εἰς τὰς χεῖρας k.r.A. The coincidence consists not merely 
in the idea, but in the reference of Christ’s trust in the Father 
to the period immediately preceding the passion, and appar- 
ently to the last discourse with the disciples, where, also, John 
records it. 


228 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


> 


enter into the kingdom of heaven;” and he immediately 
adds, “ And that it is impossible for those once born to 
enter into the wombs of those who bare them, is evident 
to all.” 1 This, of course, is not an accurate quotation 
from the Fourth Gospel. It substitutes “unless ye be 
regenerated ” (ἀναγεννη θῆτε) for “unless a man be born 
again” (or “from above,” ἐὰν μὴ tus γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν), and 
“he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven,” for 
“he cannot see the kingdom of God.” The latter 
change looks like the introduction of a Synoptic phrase, 
and corresponds exactly with the second clause of Matt. 
xvi. 3, “ Unless ye be converted and become as little 
children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” 
Moreover, in the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies 
similar quotations occur with nearly the same differ- 
ences from the text of the Fourth Gospel that are here 
found in Justin, but with additional peculiarities of 
their own. In the Recognitions we read, “Unless a 
man be born again of water, he shall not enter into 
the kingdom of heaven;”? and in the Homilies, “ Un- 
less ye be born again with living water in the name 
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ye shall not enter 


1 Ap.i. 61. καὶ yap ὁ χριστὸς εἶπεν: *Av μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε, ov 
μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. “Ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἀδύνατον 
εἰς τὰς μήτρας τῶν τεκουσῶν τοὺς ἅπαξ γενομένους ἐμβῆναι, φανερὸν 
πᾶσίν ἐστι. See John iii. 3-5. ἀπεκρίθη ᾿Ιησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ 
> A > A , PB , “ἷσ Κ᾿ > 7 ° La A 
Αμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, ov δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν 
βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ Νικόδημος Πῶς δύναται ἄν- 
θρωπος γεννηθῆναι γέρων av; μὴ δύναται εἰς τῆν κοιλίαν τῆς μητρὸς 

> A ’ ° “ ‘ a > , Thad) A > ‘ 
αὐτοῦ δεύτερον εἰσελθεῖν καὶ γεννηθῆναι; ἀπεκρίθη ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ᾿Αμὴν 
ἀμὴν λέγω σοι. ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, οὐ δύναται 
εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. 

2 Recog. vi. 9. Speaking of the advantages of baptism, the 

t=) fo) δ ? 
writer says: “Sic enim nobis cum sacramento verus Propheta tes- 
tatus est, dicens: Amen dico nobis, nisi quis denuo renatus fuerit 
ex aqua, non introibit in regna celorum.” 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 229 


into the kingdom of heaven.”! On the ground of its 
variation from the Fourth Gospel and resemblance to 
Matthew, this quotation has been assigned by some 
critics either to the assumed extra-canonical Gospel of 
which we have already spoken as a convenient recep- 
tacle for all difficult quotations found in Justin? or to 
an unwritten or variously written tradition which was 
afterwards stereotyped in the form preserved by the 
Fourth Gospel.8 

But the testimony of this passage cannot, we think, 
be thus set aside That Justin should not quote ac- 
curately is, as we have abundantly shown, in accordance 
with his usual habit. That both he and the Clemen- 
tines should mingle with a quotation from the Fourth 
Gospel one from Matthew, and should fall into the 
phraseology of the Synoptics to the extent of substi- 
tuting “kingdom of heaven” for “kingdom of God,” 
cannot be considered strange, nor is the resulting varia- 
tion from the Fourth Gospel of such kind or importance, 
even if it had become a traditional form, as to demand 
any other explanation of its origin than the habit of 

1 Hom. xi. 26. οὕτως yap ἡμῖν ὥμοσεν ὁ προφήτης εἰπών" ᾿Αμὴν 
ὑμῖν λέγω, ἐὰν μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε ὕδατι ζῶντι, εἰς ὄνομα ἸΤατρὸς, Υἱοῦ, 
ἁγίου Πνεύματος, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. 

2 So Thoma, p. 508; Volkmar and Scholten, quoted in Otto; 
and others. 

3 So Abbott, pp. 737, ete. 

* Abbott (p. 740) argues that the introduction “Christ said ” 
rather implies that Justin was not quoting from a Gospel, but 
from a tradition; but, according to his own showing, out of ten 
cases where Justin introduces a saying with the preface “Jesus 
Christ ” or “ Christ ” or “our Christ” “said,” three are exact 
quotations from the Synoptics, one is a free quotation from Mat- 
thew, two are the two uncanonical sayings of Christ, three are 
general statements of Christ’s teaching, and the tenth is the pas- 
sage before us. Nothing, therefore, can be concluded from the 
preface either way. 


230 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


free memoriter quotation of which Justin has already 
furnished many examples.!' The substitution of ἀνα- 
γεννηθῆτε for γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν may likewise be ex- 
plained by two considerations. The first is that it 
had become a technical term, as Justin himself shows; 
for in the preceding sentence he wrote, “‘Then they [1]. 6. 
the candidates for baptism] are brought by us to where 
there is water, and are regenerated (ἀναγεννώνται) accord- 
ing to the same manner of regeneration (avayevynoews) 
by which we ourselves were regenerated (ἀναγεννήθημεν): 
for in the name of God the Father and Lord of all and 
of our Saviour Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit they 
are then washed in the water.” To be “regenerated” 
was therefore to be “baptized,” and thus the words 
of Christ were understood? Secondly, the words of 
Christ were ambiguous, since they might mean either 
“born again” or “born from above.” Hence the sub- 
stitution for them by Justin and by the Clementines 
of the word which expressed their meaning, and which 
was itself a technical term in the Church, was not un- 
natural. Furthermore, the differences between Justin 
and the Clementines show that neither author quoted 
their common source accurately, but that they modified 


1 «Kingdom of heaven” is also found in the Sinaitic Manu- 
script, two old Latin manuscripts, and several early writers. 
See Westcott and Hort’s Notes on Select Readings. 

2 This may itself be a sufficient answer to Dr. Abbott’s (p. 
741) objection that Justin ought to have quoted “born of water 
and spirit,” if he meant to quote John’s Gospel as an authority 
for baptism. To Justin, “regenerate” meant to wash with water 
in the name of the Trinity. The language of Christ, therefore, 
which he quotes, was understood to be a command to do this. 

8 The same substitution was made by Ireneus (Fragm. 34), 
and is evidently implied in Clement of Alexandria (Cohort. 9). 
Dr. Ezra Abbot also cites for it some later Fathers (Authorship 
of the Fourth Gospel). 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 231 


Christ’s language in accordance with the motives which 
acted in each case upon their minds.! Finally, the 
phrase which Justin adds, “It is impossible for those 
once born to enter again into the wombs of those who 
bare them,” is so striking a coincidence, both in sub- 
stance and in connection, with the remark of Nicode- 
mus, that to consider it an original reflection of Justin’s, 
or to refer it to the ever-convenient uncanonical Gospel 
or to a traditional explanation of the doctrine of regen- 
eration, appears a thoroughly arbitrary and wilful re- 
fusal to accept the natural testimony of the passage. 
We believe the only fair conclusion to be that Justin 
quoted from the Fourth Gospel words of Christ’s. 

Of course this quotation settles the question in favor 
of Justin’s recognition of the Fourth Gospel as a trust- 
worthy narrative of Christ’s life. Though the Justin con- 

: ὃ sidered the 
evidence be small in amount, when compared Fourth Gos- 
with that for his use of the Synoptics, it is Pe! tue bis: 


tory, and 


hence of 
enough to overthrow the new theory that he apostolic 


used it only as a book of doctrine, or was ac- origin. 
quainted only with traditions out of which it grew. 
Justin was not only acquainted with the Fourth Gospel, 
but considered it true history. The inference is plain, 
that he also recognized it as an apostolic authority.” 


1 Dr. Edward Abbott (p. 753), speaking of the variations 
found in the quotations of this verse in the Clementines, says: 
“Tf, even after the stereotyping of Christian doctrine by the rec- 
ognition of the Four Gospels, these variations of quotation from 
documents were possible, and if their tendency is evidently to lay 
less stress on the inward reality and more on the outward sign of 
regeneration, how much more easy was it that changes should 
take place in the development of a still undefined and sometimes 
obscure tradition!” The principle which he here applies to the 
Clementine variations is quite sufficient to explain the variations 
in Justin, if he too used the Fourth Gospel. 

2 That he does not name John as the author of the Gospel, but 


232 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


Nevertheless, it is true that Justin does not use John’s 
Gospel im exactly the same way in which he uses the 
Yet hedoes Synoptics. It is from them, as we have 


not use it as j ; Ϊ 
Προς ἐμ seen, that he takes nearly all his evangeli- 


Synoptics. cal quotations and nearly all his narrative 
of Christ’s life. Thinking evidently of them, he states 
that “brief and concise utterances” fell from Christ’s 
lips? Some of his arguments also are drawn from the 
Synoptic Gospels when the Fourth Gospel would have 
served his purpose better. There is this much of truth 
in the theory of which we have been speaking, that 


does introduce him as the author of the Apocalypse (Dial. 81), is 
no difficulty. In the latter place he is introduced as a prophet, 
and Justin constantly cites the Old Testament prophets by name. 
But he never cites the Apostles by name as authors of either 
memoirs or other writings, with the single exception of the phrase, 
“his memoirs ” (Dial. 106, referring to Peter), where he proba- 
bly means our Mark. 

1 Ap. i. 14. 

2 See Ap. i. 63, where he quotes Matt. xi. 27 to prove that 
Christ charged the Jews with ignorance of God, instead of, e. g., 
John vii. 28. So too Clem. Hom. xvii. 4, though the Homilist cer- 
tainly recognized the Fourth Gospel. Cf. also Dial. 100, where 
Justin appeals, for the fact that Christ is Son of God, to Peter’s 
confession, and says, “ We have understood (vevonxayev) that He 
proceeded before all creatures from the Father,” etc. When, in 
Dial. 105, he says, “I have already proved that He was the only 
begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar 
way from Him as Logos and Power, and afterwards becoming 
man through the Virgin, as we learned from the memoirs,” the last 
clause may refer only to the birth from the Virgin. If, however, 
he makes the “memoirs” teach that.Christ is only begotten, ete., 
this would seem to be a reference to John (so Weiss’s Einleitung, 
p- 45); but as his argument in Dial. 100 seems to make Christ’s 
pre-existence an inference from Peter’s confession (and Matt. xi. 
27), I cannot cite Dial. 105 with confidence as a proof of his use 
of the Fourth Gospel. So when, in Dial. 48, he speaks of Christ’s 
pre-existent divinity as taught by Himself, the argument in Dial. 
100 makes me question the right to appeal to John. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 233 


Justin does mainly derive from the Fourth Gospel forms 
of doctrinal thought and expression. 

How, then, are we to explain this fact? It is not 
enough to say that the object of Justin’s writings caused 
him to pass over the profound spiritual Gos- ἘΠΕ: 
pel which was intended for Christians rather may be ex- 

: plained. 

than for their opponents ;! for, as we have 

seen, he might have found much in its reports both of 
Christ’s sayings and of events of His life which would 
have harmonized with his purposes. We rather judge 
from Justin that the Synoptics furnished the evangel- 
ical narrative, which, as narrative, was most deeply 
impressed on the Christian mind. They had already 
made this impression before John wrote his Gospel. 
How widely that Gospel was published in the years 
immediately following its composition we cannot say. 
Certainly at the great Asian and Egyptian and Roman 
centres it was known before Justin wrote. But the 
already established narrative, embodied in and perpet- 
uated by the Synoptics, seems to have continued to 
form the staple of the Christian recital of Christ’s life 
for even half a century after the Fourth Gospel was 
added to them.? Moreover, while John’s Gospel is 
strictly historical, the doctrinal objects of its narration 
are far more obvious than are those of the Synoptics. 
It was natural that it should be valued more for its 
doctrinal bearings than for its historical statements. 
Such was doubtless the purpose of its author, and none 
of its readers would be more inclined so to value it 
than this early Christian philosopher who found in its 
language the connecting link between his Christianity 
and his philosophy. 

1 Westcott’s Canon of the New Testament, pp. 95, 150. 
2 See Weiss’s Einleitung, p. 46. 


934 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


But while Justin appears to have valued the Fourth 
Gospel chiefly as a book of doctrine, the evidence for 
his recognition of it as an evangelical authority is con- 
clusive. When to this we add his description of the 
“memoirs ” as composed by the Apostles and those who 
followed them,—a statement which naturally implies 
that there was more than one “memoir” composed by 
Apostles, and more than one composed by their followers, 
and which consequently seems to compel us to suppose 
that Justin had another Gospel written by an Apostle 
ae beside Matthew's, —it is fair to infer that 

e included : 
itinthe he not only recognized the Fourth Gospel as 
memoirs.” 5 : OF ne 
an authority, but included it in the “ me- 
moirs.” Thus explained, his relation to it appears con- 
sistent both with its canonicity and apostolic authorship 
and with his own disposition and circumstances, 

It should here be added that these conclusions, which 
have been drawn from Justin’s testimony, have been 
Confrma. Confirmed by the recent recovery of Tatian’s 
tion of these Diatessaron. ‘Tatian was Justin’s pupil? or 
results by 3 d 
Tatian’s Dia- hearer? and composed a work which Eusebius 
tessaron. : 3 εἴ : 

described 8 as “a sort of connection and com- 
pilation, I know not how, of the Gospels,” which work, 
he adds, Tatian “ called the Diatessaron.” In spite of 
the reputation of Tatian in later life for heresy, this 
work of his on the Gospels was used for nearly two 
centuries in the churches of the far East, whither 
Tatian himself retired from Rome. Theodoret, Bishop 
of Cyrrhus, near the Euphrates, writing in 453 A.D., 
says that he had found “ more than two hundred copies 
of it held in respect in the churches in our parts.” 
These he collected and put away, replacing them with 


1 Hippol. adv. Heer. viii. 9. 2 Tren, i. 28. 1. 
ΒΝ ΕΠ E. iv. 29. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 235 


the Gospels of the four Evangelists. He states also that 
the Diatessaron cut out the genealogies of our Lord, but 
that nevertheless the work was used by orthodox Chris- 
tians on account of its brevity. 

This information is of itself sufficient to justify the 
conclusion that Tatian’s work was a harmony of our 
Gospels, and that therefore the Church of his day and 
by inference his master Justin accepted the authority 
of these and these alone. Though Tatian was a heretic, 
there is no reason to doubt that the Gospels which he 
used were the ones accepted by the church to which 
Justin belonged. There is, however, the additional tes- 
timony of Dionysius Bar-Salibi, an Armenian bishop of 
the twelfth or thirteenth century,! in his commentary on 
Mark, that “Tatian .. . selected and patched together 
from the four Gospels, and constructed a Gospel which 
he called the Diatessaron,’ and that Ephraem Syrus, 
who died A. D. 373, “ wrote an exposition [of it]; and its 
commencement was ‘In the beginning was the Word.’” 

Nevertheless, Credner,? and after him other critics,? 
have insisted that Tatian’s work was not a harmony of 
our Gospels, but was the uncanonical Gospel said to 
have been used by Justin or one similar to it. They 
argued that Eusebius had not seen it, and declared that 
the later Church assumed it to be a harmony and gave 
it the name of Diatessaron. They appealed to the fact 
that Epiphanius* states that “it is called by some 
‘according to the Hebrews, ” and that Victor of Capua 
called it the “Diapente.”5 But the contention has 


1 Mesinger dates his death in 1171; Lightfoot in 1207. 

2 Beitrage, p. 444; Gesch. des Kanons, pp. 17, ete. 

3 See Supernatural Religion, ii. 152, ete. 

4 Adv. Her. xlvi. 1. 

5 See Lightfoot’s “Reply to Supernatural Religion,” Con- 
temporary Review, May, 1877. He shows that “ Diapente” in 


236 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


now been settled. In 1876 there was published a Latin 
translation, made by a Venetian monk, of an Armenian 
translation of Ephraem’s Commentary just mentioned. 
This conclusively proved that Tatian’s work was, as had 
been supposed, a harmony of our Gospels. More recently 
an Arabic translation of the Diatessaron itself has been 
recovered by Professor Ciasca, of Rome, which, though 
differing in a few details from that recovered through 
Ephraem’s Commentary, is still a harmony of our Gos- 
pels;? while still more recently, on the occasion of the 
Jubilee of Pope Leo XIII., the same scholar produced 
yet another manuscript which he had discovered, and 
which contains an Arabic translation of a Syriac 
original of the Diatessaron, corresponding precisely to 
that used by Ephraem and thus giving us at last Ta- 
tian’s work entire? That Tatian composed a harmony 
of our four Gospels admits, therefore, no longer of doubt. 
We have the book itself. In it he welded the Gospels 
together with considerable boldness, and omitted from 
them the genealogies. But he used our Gospels alone, 
with occasionally a variation from them due to either 
textual corruption in his sources or to oral tradition.4 
He thus acted quite in the manner of his teacher, Jus- 
tin. Professor Zahn holds® that the Diatessaron was 
written in Syriac, and thinks that thus the remark of 
Epiphanius that “it was called by some ‘according to 
Victor is probably a clerical error, as Victor’s own language im- 
plies “ Diatessaron.” 

1 See Zahn’s Tatian’s Diatessaron, and articles by Henry Wace 
in the Expositor, vols. ii. and iv. 

2 See Encycl. Britan., xxii. 864, note 17 (Amer. ed.). 

8 This manuscript is announced as in preparation for publi- 
cation, and an English translation is being published by Prof. 
A. L. Frothingham, Jr. 

4 See Zahn’s Tatian’s Diatessaron, pp. 240, ete. 

δ Tbid., pp. 18, 220. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 237 


the Hebrews’” may be accounted ἴον. The same fact 
may explain why so little was known of the Diates- 
saron in the early Western Church. But, however 
these questions of detail may be settled, the fact that 
Justin’s pupil composed a harmony of our Gospels adds 
the strongest confirmation to the conclusion which we 
have reached that Justin and the Church of his age 
received these four Gospels alone as established evan- 
gelical authorities. 

III. It now only remains to exhibit briefly the way 
in which Justin regarded apostolic literature in general, 
the degree of authority which he attributed qq. Justin 
to it, and the amount of testimony which he ΠΟ ΤΕ 
bears to the existence of a collection of apos- Canon. 
tolic writings. 

Besides the facts pertaining to his use of the Gospels 
which have been already presented, Justin’s use of the 
New Testament may be described in a few τῆς veo of 
words. He does not mention nor quote from other New 
any other New Testament book except the books than 
Apocalypse. Of it he speaks? as the work te aire 
of “a certain man among us? whose name was John, 
one of the Apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a 
revelation that was made to him, that those who be- 
lieved in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in 
Jerusalem, and that afterward the universal and in short 
eternal resurrection and judgment of all men together 
would forthwith take place.’ At the same time, how- 
ever, the knowledge and use of many of the other 
New Testament books may be inferred from Justin’s 
language, in a way often similar to that in which we 
have found in his writings traces of the Fourth Gos- 


1 Lightfoot thinks that Epiphanius simply blundered. 
2 Dial. 81. 3 παρ᾽ ἡμῖν. 


238 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


pel. Satisfactory evidence may thus be adduced for his 
acquaintance with the Acts,! the Epistle to the Romans,? 


1 See, 6. g., Ap. i. 49, where the sentence Ἰουδαῖοι yap, ἔχοντες 
τὰς προφητείας καὶ del προσδοκήσαντες τὸν χριστόν, παραγενόμενον 
ἠγνόησαν k.t-A. seems clearly to have been moulded by Acts xiii. 
27, 28,48; Ap. i. 50, where the description of the ascension and 
the outpouring of Divine Power on the Apostles (kai eis οὐρανὸν 
ἀνερχόμενον ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες καὶ δύναμιν ἐκεῖθεν αὐτοῖς πεμ- 
φθεῖσαν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ λαβόντες) is not explained by Luke xxiv. 49, 
as Overbeck (Zeitschr. fiir wissensch. Theol., 1872, p. 313) main- 
tains, but is a distinct reference to historical facts, which occurred 
before the Apostles went forth on their mission, as given in Acts 
i. 8, 9, and ii. 33; Dial. 16, where ἀπεκτείνατε yap τὸν δίκαιον καὶ πρὸ 
αὐτοῦ τοὺς προφήτας αὐτοῦ is a reminiscence of Acts vii. 52 (see 
also Acts iii. 14); Dial. 20, where we read, “ But if we distinguish 
between green herbs, not eating all, it is not because they are 
common or unclean (κοινὰ ἢ ἀκάθαρτα), after Acts x. 14. Com- 
pare also Ap. i. 40 (τὴν γεγενημένην “HpwSov τοῦ βασιλέως ἼἸου- 
δαίων καὶ αὐτῶν Ἰουδαίων καὶ Πιλάτου τοῦ ὑμετέρου παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς 
γενομένου ἐπιτρόπου σὺν τοῖς αὐτοῦ στρατιώταις κατὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ 
συνέλευσιν) with Acts iv. 27; Ap. ii. 10 (Socrates exhorted the 
Greeks πρὸς θεοῦ δὲ τοῦ ἀγνώστου αὐτοῖς διὰ λόγου ζητήσεως 
ἐπίγνωσιν) with Acts xvii. 23; Dial. 89 (οὐ μέμηνα οὐδὲ παραφρονῶ) 
with Acts xxvi. 25; Dial. 68 (where Trypho quotes 2 Kings vii. 
12-16 (Ps. exxxi. 11) changing κοιλίας to ὀσφύος) with Acts ii. 
30, though the text of the LX-X. may have varied; Dial. 120 (the 
reference to Simon Magus) with Acts viii. 10. 

2 In Dial. 23, Justin’s argument about Abraham’s circumcision 
is clearly an echo of Rom. iv. 10,11. Note ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ ὧν in 
connection with the quotation of Gen. xv. 16 and eis σημεῖον. 
True, Justin did not grasp Paul’s thought. He makes Abraham 
justified διὰ τὴν πίστιν, and circumcision a σημεῖον, not a σφραγῖδα; 
but he clearly had Paul’s teaching in mind. So in Dial. 11 (Ἰσρα- 
ηλιτικὸν yap τὸ ἀληθινόν, πνευματικόν καὶ ᾿Ιούδα γένος καὶ ᾿Ιακὼβ Kat 
᾿Ισαὰκ καὶ ᾿Αβραάμ, τοῦ ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ κιτ.λ.) we have a reminis- 
cence of Rom. iv. 10, 17, and in Dial. 92 (περιτομὴν ἔχοντες... 
τῆς καρδίας, with the context), of Rom. iv. and ii. 29. In Dial. 32, 
55, 64, the description of “ the remnant” (Isa. i. 9; x. 22), as left 
κατὰ χάριν, implies remembrance of Rom. ix. 29 with xi. 5; while 
Dial. 44 (καὶ ἐξαπατᾶτε ἑαυτούς x.7.X.) seems to be a reminiscence 
of Rom. ix. 7, not only in its general thought, but in the intro- 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 239 


the First Epistle to the Corinthians,! the Second Epis- 
tle to the Thessalonians,? and the Epistles to the Gala- 


duction of ra κατηγγελμένα .. . ἀγαθά from the ai ἐπαγγελίαι of 
Rom. ix. 4, and τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας of verse 9. In Ap. i. 40 
and Dial. 42, Justin interprets Ps. xix. as prophetic of the preach- 
ing of the Apostles. Rom. x. 18 uses the language of the Psalm 
to describe the same, though without calling it a prediction. Dial. 
39, like Rom. xi. 2-4, quotes Elijah’s complaint as applicable to 
the later Israel (observe ἐντυγχάνων) ; and in Ap. i. 5 we read, 
πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσεται αὐτῷ, like Rom. iv. 11 (Isa. xlv. 23 
(LXX.) has ὀμεῖται). Note that the parts of Romans with which 
Justin shows acquaintance are those which treat of the relation of 
the Jews to the Church; namely, the discussion of circumcision 
and Abraham’s faith, and of the rejection of Israel with the ex- 
ception of a “remnant.” So we would expect from the subject 
of the Dialogue in which the above references are mainly found. 
Yet he does not reproduce Paul’s argument, but only his prac- 
tical position towards Judaism. 

1 See Ap. i. 19, the growth of a seed used as illustrative of 
resurrection. Note, especially, παρατάξει θεοῦ and ἀφθαρσίαν ἐνδύ- 
σασθαι. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 38 and 53. So Ap.i.52: ἐνδύσει ἀφθαρ- 
giav. Dial. 14— “For this is the symbolism of the unleavened 
bread, that ye do not the old deeds of the wicked leaven (iva μὴ 
Ta παλαιὰ τῆς κακῆς ζύμης ἔργα πράττητε) ” —is at least a striking 
coincidence with 1 Cor. v. 8; while in Dial]. 111 the statement 
ἦν yap τὸ πάσχα ὁ χριστός, 6 τυθεὶς ὕστερον doubtless came from the 
first clause of the same verse of 1 Corinthians. In Dial. 35 (see 
also Dial. 51), the words attributed to Christ, ἔσονται σχίσματα 
καὶ αἱρέσεις, probably arose from a confusion of 1 Cor. xi. 18, 19, 
with Christ’s predictions in Matt. xxv. In Ap. i. 66; Dial. 41, 
70, the words παρέδωκαν (or παρέδωκε) and εἰς ἀνάμνησιν (Luke’s 
account was probably early modified by Paul’s) evidence the 
knowledge of 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24; while in Dial. 39 the description of 
the spiritual gifts bestowed by Christ on believers, while perhaps 
influenced by Isa. xi. 2, appears to have been founded on 1 Cor. 
xii. 7-10; and in Dial. 42 the use of the physical body to illus- 
trate the unity of the Church recalls 1 Cor. xii. 13. Compare also 
Ap. i. 60 (ὡς συνεῖναι οὐ σοφίᾳ ἀνθρωπείᾳ ταῦτα γεγονέναι ἀλλὰ 
δυνάμει θεοῦ λέγεσθαι) with 1 Cor. ii. 4, and Dial. 88 (οἶδα ὅτι, ὡς 
ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος ἔφη (i. e., Isa. xxix. 14), κέκρυπται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἡ σοφία 
κτλ.) with 1 Cor. i. 19, 24; ii. 7, 8. 

2 See Dial. 32, where, after saying that Antichrist would be 


240 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


tians,) Philippians,? Colossians,? and Hebrews,! as well 


destroyed at Christ’s coming, but would continue “a time, times, 
and half a time,” he concludes that at least τὸν τῆς ἀνομίας 
ἄνθρωπον τριακόσια πεντήκοντα ἔτη βασιλεῦσαι δεῖ. So in Dial. 
110, ὁ τῆς ἀποστασίας ἄνθρωπος .. . ἄνομα τολμήσῃ εἰς ἡμᾶς, and in 
Dial. 116, ὁ διάβολος ἐφέστηκεν ἀεὶ ἀντικείμενος. Compare 2 Thess. 
ii. 3, 4, 8. 

1 Dial. 44 (καὶ ἐξαπατᾶτε ἑαυτοὺς x.t-A.) seems clearly an echo 
of Gal. iii., as well as of Rom. ix. 7, though Paul’s argument is not 
Justin’s. So Dial. 119: “ We shall inherit the Holy Land with 
Abraham, receiving forever the inheritance, τέκνα τοῦ ᾿Αβραὰμ διὰ 
τὴν ὁμοίαν πίστιν ὄντες. In Dial. 95, 96, Justin quotes, “ Cursed 
is every one who continueth not in all things written in the book 
of the law to do them,” to show man’s universal guilt, and there- 
fore the reason why Christ died for all men. Christ ought, 
therefore, to be reverenced; but the Jews curse Him and His, 
thus fulfilling the other prophecy, “Cursed is every one who hang- 
eth on a tree.” The latter, Justin says, did not mean that Christ 
would be cursed by God, but by the Jews. The collocation of 
the two quotations from Deuteronomy shows clearly acquaintance 
with Gal. iii. 10-13, though Justin misunderstood verse 13. He 
was governed in his understanding of it, as is shown by Trypho’s 
remarks in Dial. 32, 89, by the desire to retort on the Jews their 
declaration that the passage proved Jesus to have been disap- 
proved by God. Here, as with Romans, we notice Justin’s inabil- 
ity to grasp Paul’s thought, though supposing that he was following 
the Apostle. Compare also Dial. 116 (“ We who through the name 
of Jesus believed as one man in God”) with Gal. iii. 28. 

2 See Dial. 33 (ὅτι ταπεινὸς ἔσται πρῶτον ἄνθρωπος εἶτα ὑψω- 
θήσεται) and Dial. 134 (ἐδούλευσε καὶ τὴν μέχρι σταυροῦ δουλείαν 6 
χριστὸς), where Justin had clearly in mind Phil. ii. 7-9. 

8 See Ap. i. 23, 46, 63 (πρωτότοκος τοῦ θεοῦ), 33, 53 (πρωτότ. τῷ 
θεῷ); Dial. 84 (πρωτότ. τῶν πάντων ποιημάτων), 85 (πρωτότ. πάσης 
κτίσεως), 100 (πρωτότ. τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων), 125 
(τέκνον πρωτότοκον τῶν ὅλων κτισμάτων), 188 (πρωτότ. πάσης κτί- 
σεως wv). In Ap. i. 58, Justin has τοῦ πρωτογόνου αὐτοῦ, which is 
Philonian (cf. Dr. E. A. Abbott, Modern Review, July, 1882); but 
his usual phrase is apostolic, and evidently taken from Col. i. 15. 
Compare also Dial. 43 (“ We receive circumcision through bap- 
tism ”) with Col. ii. 11, 12, and Dial. 28 (“If there be any Scyth- 
ian or Persian,” etc.) with Col. iii. 9-11. 

4 See Ap. i. 12, 63, where Christ is called ἀπόστολος. So Heb. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 241 


as with the First Epistle of John.1 Reminiscences of 
Second Corinthians,? Ephesians? First Timothy,’ Titus, 


iii. 1, only in the New Testament. Cf. also Dial. 11 and following 
chapters, where Christianity is called διαθήκην καινὴν, and Jer. 
xxxi. 31 is quoted. So Heb. viii. 7-9. Cf. especially Dial. 13 (τοῖς 

- » μηκέτι αἵμασι τράγων καὶ προβάτων ἢ σποδῷ δαμάλεως ἢ σεμι- 
δάλεως προσφοραῖς καθαριζομένοις ἀλλὰ πίστει διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ 
χριστοῦ) with Heb. ix. 18, 14; Dial. 67 (the new covenant, un- 
like the old, was not established pera φόβου καὶ τρόμου) with Heb. 
xii. 18, 19; Ap. i. 45 (David predicted that the Father would 
exalt Christ to heaven καὶ κατέχειν ἕως ἂν πατάξη τοὺς ἐχθραίνοντας 
αὐτῷ δαίμονας) with Heb. x. 18. 

1 See especially Dial. 128, καὶ θεοῦ τέκνα ἀληθινὰ καλούμεθα καί 
ἐσμεν οἱ τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ χριστοῦ φυλάσσοντες. Compare 1 John 
iii. 1-3. Compare also Dial. 32 (Believers are a robe ἐν οἷς οἰκεῖ 
τὸ mapa τοῦ θεοῦ σπέρμα, 6 λόγος) with 1 John iii. 9, and Dial. 45 
(Christ was made flesh ἵνα διὰ τῆς οἰκονομίας ταύτης ὁ πονηρευσάμε- 
νος τὴν ἀρχὴν ὄφις καὶ οἱ ἐξομοιωθέντες αὐτῷ ἄγγελοι καταλυθῶσι) 
with 1 John iii. 8. 

2 See Dial. 35, where “many false Christs and ψευδοαπόστολοι 
shall arise” are quoted as Christ’s words. The previous quo- 
tation, “ There shall be schisms and heresies,” was, as already 
observed, probably due to a confusion of 1 Cor. xi. 18, 19, 
with Matt. xxv.; and as Ψευδοαπόστολοι only occurs in the New 
Testament in 2 Cor. xi. 13, the latter place may have origi- 
nated the expression used by Justin. See, however, Rev. ii. 
2; and the word would be easily suggested to follow “false 
Christs.” 

8 Compare Dial. 47 (ἡ yap χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία τοῦ 
θεοῦ καὶ τὸ ἄμετρον τοῦ πλούτου αὐτοῦ) with Eph. ii. 2, iii. 8 ; Dial. 
120 (The Simonians said that Simon was God ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς 
καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως) with Eph. i. 21; Dial. 114 (“ Cireumcised 
by the words of the apostles of the Chief Corner-stone”) with 
Eph. ii. 20; Dial. 137 (Christ called τοῦ ἠγαπημένου) with Eph. i. 6 
(here only in the New Testament). 

4 Compare Ap. i. 6 (“the host of the other good angels”) with 
1 Tim. v. 21, and Dial. 7 (τὰ τῆς πλάνης πνεύματα καὶ δαιμόνια), 35 
(“the doctrines ἀπὸ τῶν τῆς πλάνης πνευμάτων ᾽) with the πνεύμασι 
πλάνοις of 1 Tim. iv. 1. 

5 See Dial. 47. yap χρηστότης καὶ φιλανθρωπία τοῦ θεοῦ. 
Compare Tit. iii. 4. 

16 


242 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


James, and First Peter? may also with more or less 
probability be pointed out. This is far more testimony 
to the Epistles than we should have reason to expect in 
books addressed to pagans and to Jews. 

ἘΠῚ ΤΠ ΠΟ But the question is, How did Justin re- 
regard #P°S- gard apostolic literature? We observe in 
tore: answer : — 

(1) That he strongly declares the authority of the 
Apostles as teachers of Christianity. “By the power 
Giese: of God they proclaimed to every race of men 
genet that they were sent by Christ to teach to all 
the Apostles the word of God.”? “They preached Christ’s 
Cea teaching.”* Going out from Jerusalem, “they 
preached the mighty word.”® After Christ’s ascension 
they “received power, sent to them from Him from 
heaven, and coming to every race of men they taught 
these things and were called Apostles.”® Speaking of 
baptism, Justin says, “and this reason for this we 
learned from the Apostles;”* so that the latter were 
not only held to have repeated Christ’s teaching, but to 


1 In Ap. i. 16, Matt. v. 34, 37, appears to have been modified 
by Jas. v. 12. See above, on Justin’s quotations from the Sy- 
noptics. 

2 Compare Dial. 139 (εἰς φιλίαν καὶ εὐλογίαν . . . καλῶν) with 
1 Pet. iii. 9. Possibly the pseudo-quotation from Jeremiah, “The 
Holy Lord God of Israel remembered His dead, who slept in the 
grave, and descended to them to preach His salvation,” which 
Justin (Dial. 72) says the Jews had cut out, may indicate an early 
interpretation of 1 Pet. iii. 19; iv. 6. But Justin says nothing 
elsewhere of preaching to the dead. 


SAD: τς. 99: 
4 Αρ.1. 40. περὶ τῶν κηρυξάντων τὴν διδαχὴν αὐτοῦ. 
5 Ap. i. 45. 6 Ap. i. 50. 


7 Ap. i. 61. The fact that the reason given by Justin for bap- 
tism is not apostolic, at least in the form in which he states it, 
does not lessen the significance of his reference to apostolic in- 
struction as that to which the faith of the Church appealed. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 243 


have explained it with authority. He declares, further, 
that “as twelve bells were attached to the robe of the 
high-priest, so the twelve Apostles depended on the 
power of the eternal priest, Christ, and through their 
voice the whole earth was filled with the glory and 
grace of God and His Christ.”! The Gentiles believed 
“when they heard the word preached by His Apostles 
and when they learned it through them.”2 Christians 
have learned the true worship of God “from the law 
and the word which came forth from Jerusalem through 
the Apostles of Jesus.”® “The words [which came] 
through the Apostles of the Chief Corner-stone ” have 
spiritually circumcised us; that is, have brought us into 
newness of life ‘We have not been misled by those 
who taught us such doctrines.”® “We have believed 
the voice of God which was again spoken through the 
Apostles of Christ, and which was preached to us through 
the prophets.”® Manifestly, Justin regarded the Apos- 
tles as infallible witnesses to Christ’s life and teaching, 
and as authoritative expounders of Christianity. He 
does not apply to them the term “inspired;” but he 
declares them to have been endowed with power from 
on high, so that their teaching was the teaching of 
Christ and their word the voice of God. From them 
the Church had learned Christianity. Only through 
their preaching could the revelation through Christ be 
known. 

(2) Hence the written “ memoirs of the Apostles,” or 
Gospels, are spoken of by Justin as authoritative sources 

1 Dial. 42. 2) Dial. 109. 

8 Dial. 110. ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἐξελθόντος ἀπὸ 
Ἱερουσαλὴμ διὰ τῶν τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἀποστόλων τὴν θεοσέβειαν ἐπιγνόντες. 

4 Dial. 114. 5 Dial. 118. 


6 Dial.119. Credner naturally concluded that these words are 
spurious. See Otto’s note. 


944 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


for Christian faith. They were authoritative to him be- 
cause they were apostolic. “Those who recorded all the 
(2) andtheir “ings concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ 
memoirs Ag taught” His miraculous birth To the “ me- 
tive sources moirs” he appeals for proof that Christ is 
for faith. Son of God In the “memoirs” the Apostles 
handed down the account of the institution of the Eu- 
charist.2 He tells us that in public service on the 
Lord’s Day “the memoirs of the Apostles or the writ- 
ings of the prophets are read as long as time permit,” # 
and that an exhortation by the president followed, based 
on the passages which had just been read. The Apostles, 
therefore, to the Church of Justin’s time were not only 
infallible witnesses and teachers of Christianity, but 
their written testimony, so far at least as the Gospels 
were concerned, was the source and guide of Christian 
faith and practice. To them Christians appealed both 
for facts and for doctrines. If any other facts concern- 
ing Christ were accepted on tradition, the statements of 
the Gospels were nevertheless the authority to which 
appeal was made, and the witness of tradition was in- 
comparably less in amount and in importance than 
theirs. They were read in the assembly interchange- 
ably with, and, it would seem from the order of Justin’s 
language, oftener than, the writings of the prophets. 

(3) Furthermore, Justin at least six times introduces 
(3) Quotes ἃ quotation from or a reference to the Gos- 
ne Bee pels with the sacred formula “It is writ- 
ἔπτειν ten ;”° and in one place remarks that “with 
us the prince of the demons is called Serpent and 


1 Ap. i. 33. 2 Dial. 100. 

3 Ap. i. 66. 4 Ap. 1. 6d. 

5 γέγοαπται. Dial. 49, 100, 101, 106, 107, 111. In 103, also, 
Otto conjectures it with reference to Luke xxii. 44. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 245 


Satan and Devil, as also ye can learn by inquiring 
of our writings,”1— a sentence in which we may 
not only see another reference to the Apocalypse,? 
but also a reference to a distinct Christian literature 
which, while nothing definite is said of its authority in 
the Church, was evidently regulative of the Church’s 
faith. 

If to these facts we add the many instances in which 
Justin followed, or at least thought he was following, 
the teaching of the New Testament epistles, we have a 
considerable amount of evidence tending to show that 
apostolic writings were regarded as the authoritative 
exponents of Christianity. 

On the other hand, certain facts seem to point to a 
different conclusion :— 

(1) Justin uses the Old Testament as inspired Scrip- 
ture, calling it constantly “the Scripture” or “the 
Word,” in marked contrast to the indefinite 
way in which he speaks of Christian litera- eae 
ture other than the Gospels. It would seem, ee ar a 
at first sight, as if he ranked only the Gospels (inerent 
on a level with “the prophets.” 

(2) He makes, as we have observed, no direct appeal 
to any apostolic writing besides the Gospels, except to 
the Apocalypse; and this latter he introduces almost 
incidentally, after he had already sought to prove his 
point from the Old Testament. 

(3) He makes no mention of public ecclesiastical use 
of any apostolic writings except the “memoirs.” 

(4) He speaks of believing the testimony of the 
Apostles because it agreed with the Old Testament,? 


1 Ap. i. 28. ὡς καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἡμετέρων συγγραμμάτων ἐρευνήσαντες 
μαθεῖν δύνασθε. 
2. Rev. xx. 3 Ap. i. 33. 


246 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


thus seeming to place them in a subordinate position; 
while the various points in which he deviated from the 
teaching of the New Testament, and the freedom with 
which he explained the Gospel by philosophy often 
seem inconsistent with a recognition of the divine 
authority of the apostolic writings. 

But in estimating the weight of these items of nega- 
tive evidence several considerations should be borne 
in mind: — 

(1) For one thing, Justin’s apologetic purpose neces- 
sarily prevented him from appealing to purely Christian 
But (1)his teachers as authorities. He appealed to the 
ea ὦ prophets because they were recognized by 
prevented —'Trypho, and would, he thought, be convincing 


appeal to 
apostles as_ even to pagan readers because of their an- 


authoritative 

teachers. tiquity and the remarkable fulfilment of their 
predictions. But neither Jew nor pagan would have 
been moved by the citation of apostolic teaching. The 
teaching of Christ is presented mainly to exhibit its 
moral and reasonable character or its fulfilment of 
prophecy. To the Jew the prophets, and to the pagans 
philosophy, were the only authorities that Justin could 
quote. Had his work against heresies been preserved, 
his attitude toward the epistles of the Apostles might 
appear very different from what it now does. Ter- 
tullian, whose acceptance of the Canon is certain, does 
not once appeal to any New Testament passage in his 
Apology. 

The same apologetic motive may explain, also, why 
Justin bases his belief in the Apostles on their agree- 
ment with the prophets. To give a reason for faith is 
one thing. Thereafter to accept truth upon authority 
is another. Justin was convinced of the credibility of 
the Apostles, as he was of the credibility of Christ, 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 947 


chiefly because they and Christianity in general fulfilled 
the prophetic predictions ; but this was not inconsistent 
with taking his Christianity from the apostolic teaching 
and testimony, which, as we have seen, he did. 

(2) But, furthermore, Justin’s prevailing thought of 
the personal Logos led him to represent Christianity as 
the teaching of Christ, rather than to distinguish be- 
tween His statements and those of His mes- 


i (2) His doc- 
sengers. Even the Old Testament is repre- ener 
sented as given by the Logos,! though the him to ap- 


] 
prophets are cited by name. But the incar- Onrist’s 


nation of the Logos was to Justin the central ¥°"** 

fact both of Christianity and of human history. The 
person of Christ was, in his view, the substance and 
foundation of the Church’s faith. So far, therefore, 
as the original Christian teaching was presented at all 
by him, it was naturally cited in the very words of 
the Logos, rather than in those of even His chosen 
emissaries. 

(3) The single statement that in public worship 
“the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the 
prophets” were read, may not be pressed so (3) His 
as to exclude from public reading all other language 
apostolic works than the “memoirs,” since we aaa 
have frequent testimony from other ancient ‘°*” 
writers that even non-apostolic epistles were often thus 
used. 

(4) Finally, Justin’s deviations from New Testament 
teaching were evidently unconsciously made. He be- 
lieved himself to be repeating the doctrines (4) His devi- 
of the Apostles and to be defending the tions from 


apostolic 


original faith of the Church; and if he did Ane 


not see that he was in reality departing made. 
1 Ap. i. 36. 


248 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


from that faith and those doctrines, he did only what 
many have since done, whose acceptance of the New 
Testament as inspired is unquestioned. 

After balancing these considerations, certain points 
appear sufficiently distinct. It is impossible, we think, 
to affirm fairly, as rationalistic critics have 
often done, that Justin did not have the 
idea of an authoritative New Testament Scripture. It 
is likewise impossible to affirm categorically that he 
did have it in the complete form in which it was 
expressed by the next generation. But the probabili- 
ties of the case accumulate decidedly in favor of the 
latter rather than of the former view. It is clear that 
he appealed to apostolic writings rather than to oral 
tradition as authority for his representation of Chris- 
tianity. It is clear that at least the Gospels had been 
formed into a sacred collection, called “the Gospel,”?! 
which ranked on an equality with the Old Testa- 
ment, and that other apostolic books were used to reg- 
ulate the faith of the Church. It is perfectly fair to 
infer that these other books were held in precisely the 
same estimate as the Gospels; for the authority of the 
Apostles as teachers was fully confessed and their doc- 
trines echoed by Justin even when he misunderstood 
them. True, oral tradition was still followed when 
believed to be pure and well-attested. Distance and 
heresy had not yet sufficiently increased to compel 
exclusive reliance on written records, though they were 
fast leading to that result. No doubt, also, not all of 
the New Testament books were as yet known and 
accepted in all parts of the Church. But when we 
remember the apologetic object and the philosophizing 
spirit of Justin’s writings, we ought to acknowledge that 


1 Dial. 10, 100. 


Conclusion. 


JUSTIN ON THE NEW TESTAMENT, 249 


he gives as much testimony to the Canon as we should 
expect to obtain from him. His positive testimony, so 
far as it goes, distinctly proves at least a Gospel canon, 
and renders a larger canon not improbable. His nega- 
tive testimony is largely counterbalanced by his object 
, and his spirit. He, moreover, is but a single witness, 
and the acceptance by the Church of the New Testa- 
ment as “Scripture” may be proved by others. The 
testimony of Irenzeus is in reality that of the Asian 
churches of the first half of the second century. The 
“Muratori Fragment” speaks for the Roman Church 
at but a little later date than Justin. Even in the 
apostolic age itself Paul called the Gospel of Luke 
“Seripture ;” + and in Second Peter, which we hold to be 
genuine, the epistles of Paul are similarly termed; 2 
while Ignatius, in the first decade of the second cen- 
tury, not only repeatedly declares the authority of the 
Apostles as teachers,? but evidently had a collection of 
apostolic writings besides the Gospels which formed 
with the Gospels his Christian Scriptures. This com- 
bined testimony Justin does not oppose, though his 
own is more limited in extent. So far as his testimony 
does go, when read in the light of the purpose of his 
writings and the characteristics of his mind, it confirms 
the conviction that the Church of the post-apostolic 
age possessed in more or less completeness, in differ- 
ent localities, our New Testament and regarded it in 


11 Tim. v. 18. 2 2 Pet. iii. 16. 

® See, e.g.,ad Rom. 4. “I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue 
commandments unto you. They were Apostles; I am but a con- 
demned man.” 

4 Ad Phil. 5. “ While I flee to the Gospel as to the flesh of 
Jesus, and to the Apostles as to the Presbytery of the Church.” 
How could he flee to the Apostles except by turning to their 
writings? 


950 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


substantially the same way that Irenzeus did, as form- 
ing with the Old Testament the Christian Scriptures, an 
authoritative rule of faith and practice. These books, 
also, in Justin’s time had practically supplanted oral 
tradition as trustworthy witnesses to the inspired apos- 
tolic message. 


LECTURE VI. 


THE TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN TO THE ORGANIZATION 
AND BELIEF OF THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 


E are now, finally, to examine Justin’s testimony 

to the Church itself, — to look through him at 

those early Christian communities of which we have 

already learned much from his writings, but whose 

internal conditions and ruling beliefs we may more 
directly observe. 

In a previous lecture we examined the external rela- 
tions of the Church of the second century, 
and the popular and legal objections then 
made to Christianity ; and in doing so we found the 
Church to consist of locally organized societies, scattered 
widely throughout the Empire, everywhere the object of 
popular distrust, and liable under the law at any moment 
to suffer persecution. We have learned, further, that the 
Church of Justin’s age was distinctly and consciously a 
Gentile society, which looked back indeed to a Hebrew 
parentage and contained a minority who united Jewish 
rites with Christian faith, but which felt itself to be as 
a body emancipated from Jewish limitations. Gentiles 
were regarded as its natura] adherents. The Church re- 
joiced to believe in a Redeemer of whose kingdom every 
race was to be equally a partaker, and was even disposed ° 
to look beyond its Hebrew parentage, and to declare it- 
self the child of the universal conscience and reason of 
mankind. Hence we found Christianity at this period 


Review. 


ΣΝ JUSTIN MARTYR. 


influenced by the ideas which heathen culture had pre- 
viously originated, affected by the more spiritual phi- 
losophy of paganism, grappling with the problems which 
its exclusive claims suggested to the heathen world, as it 
had already grappled with those suggested to the Jewish 
race, and endeavoring either to reconcile reason and rey- 
elation or to prove the rights of revelation against the es- 
tablished dominion of reason. Then in the last lecture 
we found from Justin that the Church of his age was in 
possession of a sacred literature besides that which it had 
inherited from the Hebrews, which it regarded of apos- 
tolic origin and to the statements of which it appealed 
as giving the rule of faith and conduct. It claimed to 
rest its beliefs on apostolic authority, and with the pro- 
gress of time was depending less and less on tradition 
and was becoming more and more a religion of a book. 
It remains, then, to ask what glimpses we may obtain 
from our Apologist of the internal constitu- 
aeons ions tion and doctrinal tenets of the Church itself. 
the constitu- We know, from the testimony of the follow- 
faith of the ing age, that changes of form and elaboration 
of belief had taken place since the days of 
the Apostles. What information does Justin give con- 
cerning these changes, and what light does he conse- 
quently throw on the character of the Church, both in 
his own and in the preceding age ? 

To appreciate, however, the value of this part of 
Justin’s testimony, it is necessary first to observe that 
he openly claimed and manifestly thought 

He claimed ἢ 5 : 
to represent himself to be the fair representative of the 
nea great body of Christians, and that with them 
his Christianity had been received from the generation 
before him. We have several times remarked this, but 
now it should be particularly proved. Justin did not 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 253 


defend a sect of Christians, but the beliefs and usages 
followed by the great majority of the Christian com- 
munity. He insists on his orthodoxy, as we may fairly 
term it,— on his fidelity to the faith handed down from 
the Apostles; and though, as we have seen, his philoso- 
phy did in reality seriously modify that faith, he was 
himself evidently unconscious of any departure from it. 
Thus Justin not only presented his Apology in the 
name of all true Christians, but he specially makes the 
point that these should not be confounded with Chris- 
tians falsely so called1_ Of the real moral character of 
these false Christians he professes to know nothing, and 
had, it would seem, no dealings with them.2 The doc- 
trine which he represented was, on the other hand, the 
traditional belief of the churches. “We have received 
by tradition,’ ὃ he says, “ how God is to be worshipped.” 
“We have been taught; and have been persuaded and be- 
lieve, that He only accepts those who imitate His excel- 
lences.” By these expressions he meant that they had 
been persuaded by Christ’s teaching delivered to them 
through the Apostles.® So likewise had the rite of bap- 
tism and the reason for its observance been, according 
to our author, received from the Apostles ;® and the pur- 
pose of Justin and the Church to adhere to the apostolic 
commands appears when he says of the Eucharist that 
the Apostles in the “memoirs” thus delivered what was 
enjoined on them.’ In opposition, therefore, to false 
Christians, he classes himself with those “ who are dis- 
cuples of the true and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ.” ὃ 


a Ap. 1. 4. 2 Ap. i. 26. 
3 Ap.i. 10. παρειλήφαμεν. 4 Tbhid. δεδιδάγμεθα. 
5 Ap. i. 53. 6 Ap. i. 61. 


7 Ap. i. 66. παρέδωκαν. 
5. Dial. 35. ἡμεῖς of τῆς ἀληθινῆς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ καθαρᾶς 
διδασκαλίας μαθηταί. 


954. JUSTIN MARTYR. 


Speaking of Chiliasm, he admits that “many who are of 
the pure and pious faith” 1 reject it. He chooses not, 
like the false Christians, to follow men or men’s doc- 
trines, but God and the doctrines which are from Him,? 
and speaks of himself and those who agree with him as 
thus being “in all respects right-minded Christians,” ὃ 
or, in other words, “ orthodox.” It is evident from these 
expressions that to Justin Christianity was a body of 
definite beliefs which he had received, and which the 
vast majority of Christians accepted as having been 
handed down from the Apostles. Justin’s philosophy 
had not made his Christianity, though he found the 
two harmonious, and though he understood the latter 
by the aid of the former. He was positive that the 
Christianity which he professed was that which had 
been delivered to the Church at the beginning. 
Furthermore, Justin’s declared attitude toward heresy 
testifies in the same direction. Most keenly was he 
His oppo. 2 WATE of the existence of heresies. Most 
aoe positively did he declare them to be novel- 
τ ties, introduced by the demons to destroy the 
work of Christ. Most anxious was he not to be identi- 
fied with heretics, and most vigorously did he repudiate 
their teaching. Thus in the Apology he declares that 
Simon Magus and Menander and Marcion had been 
put forward by the devils to deceive men.* The two 
former he speaks of as magicians ; but Marcion he speci- 
fies as a heretic proper, who was at that time alive and 
causing many of every nation to utter blasphemies 


1 Dial. 80. πολλοὺς δ᾽ ad καὶ τῶν τῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ εὐσεβοῦς 
ὄντων Χριστιανῶν γνώμης. 

2 Thid. τοῖς παρ᾽ ἐκείνου διδάγμασιν. 

8 Thid. ὀρθογνώμονες κατὰ πάντα Χριστιανοί. 

4 Ap. i. 26, 56, 58. 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 255 


against the Creator of the universe. He insinuates, 
unfairly no doubt so far as the Marcionites were con- 
cerned, that the slanderous tales circulated about 
the Christians might be true of these heretics and 
speaks of them all and of Marcion in particular with 
no little bitterness, declaring of the latter that “many 
have believed him as if he alone knew the truth, and 
laugh at us, though they have no proof of what they 
say, but are carried away irrationally as lambs by a 
wolf, and become the prey of atheistical doctrines and 
of devils.”2 So also he declares that the appearance of 
heretics in the Church only makes the true disciples 
more firm in the faith, since Christ had predicted the 
coming of such false teachers.2 He shrewdly points out, 
also,* that the heretical doctrines bear the names of 
their founders; the sects being called Marcionites,® or 
Valentinians, or Basilideans, or Saturnilians, after the 
individuals who originated them. They were thus 
stamped as novelties, unlike the original apostolic doc- 
trine. Against all these Gnostic heretics Justin speaks 
with the utmost indignation. “They blaspheme,” he 
says, “the Creator and Christ.”® “We have nothing 
in common with them, since we know them to be 
atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confes- 
sors of Jesus in name only, instead of worshippers of 
Him.”* “Many have taught godless, blasphemous, and 
unholy doctrines, forging them in Christ’s name;”§ 
that is, imputing them falsely to Christ. All these 

a Ap. 1. 26. 2 Ap. i. 58. 

8 Dial. 35, 51, 82. * Dial. 35. 

5 Mapxiavoi, either a corruption from Μαρκιανισταί or else 
formed from the Latin AfLarcius. See Otto’s note. 

δ Dial. 35. 7 Ibid. See also 80. 


§ Dial. 82. ἐν ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ παραχαράσσοντες. May not this 
refer to the falsification of apostolic writings, such as Marcion’s 


256 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


heretical sects were popularly called Christians, but 
Justin repudiates them as recent perverters of Christi- 
anity. Some of them ate meat which had been offered 
to idols;! some denied the resurrection of the dead ;? 
all blasphemed the Creator, and misrepresented Christ, 
and stood, in fact, outside of the pale of the true, apos- 
tolic Church. 

The significance of these statements of our Apologist 
is very great. It is true that these heretics against 
Bs whom he inveighed so bitterly were Gnostics, 
Sign testi. and that he spoke in a much gentler way 
mony forthe even of the extreme sect of Jewish Chris- 


unity and 
apostolicity tians® But it is not to be inferred from this 


hoe that he represents a fusion of Jewish Chris- 
churches. nae : : : . 
tianity with a portion of the Gentile Chris- 
tians who reacted against Gnosticism. How firmly he 
stood on Gentile ground, and how plainly he speaks of 
even moderate Jewish Christianity as a weakness, we 
have already learned; and his apparent gentleness in 
speaking of some who denied the divinity of Christ 
did not prevent him from branding their belief as a mere 
“human doctrine.”* But his description of the heretics 
clearly shows that the Church of his day esteemed their 
doctrines as novelties. As Justin says, these sects bore 
the names of their founders. The Church, however, 
bore no man’s name. Such is clearly Justin’s implica- 
tion. As the absence from his writings of any direct ap- 
peal to the apostolic epistles is of itself a proof that in 
the Church stress was not laid on the teaching of indi- 


mutilation of Luke, and perhaps the Valentinian “Gospel of 
Truth ” (Iren. iii. 11. 9)? 

1 Dial. 35. He does not say that all the sects mentioned 
were guilty of this. Both the Marcionites and the Saturnili- 
ans were vegetarians, 

2 Dial. 80. 8 See Lect. III. 4 Dial. 48. 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 257 


vidual apostles, but on their united proclamation of 
Christ, so the man-named sects stood in contrast to the 
ereat body of believers, their teaching being stamped as 
an innovation on the apostolic faith. Justin testifies, 
therefore, to the complete separation of the orthodox 
Christians from the pseudo-Christian sects or schools of 
thought which had already arisen. He and the Church 
held to the apostolic teaching. Such, at least, was the 
position which they tried to occupy. His Christianity 
betrays no consciousness of having arisen from the fusion 
of, or compromise between, previously antagonistic par- 
ties ; and the differences which existed between it and 
apostolic Christianity may, as we have seen,! be ex- 
plained in another way. It was a Christianity which 
knew Gnosticism to be a novelty, and considered Jewish 
Christianity, if not carried too far, a pardonable weak- 
ness, but which itself stood on the foundation which 
it was assured, both by tradition and by written records, 
had been laid by the Apostles of Christ. 

Nor is there any reason to believe that Justin mis- 
represented the essential features of Christianity for the 
purpose of commending it to the unbelievers sary oie 
for whom he wrote. That he would be in- mony trust- 
fluenced by this purpose in the selection of ae 
arguments and in modes of expression, would be almost 
inevitable; and the fact may be perceived especially in 
the Apology. The resemblances which he adduces be- 
tween the facts of Christ’s life and the tales of my- 
thology are to be referred to this motive. His desire to 
secure belief in Christ as sent from God, even if His 
divinity be denied,? betrays no doubt the same apologetic 
spirit. It is not improbable, also, that he felt that his 
doctrine of the Logos would commend itself to the better 


1 Lect. IV. 2 Ap. i. 22; Dial. 48. 
17 


258 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


class of pagans, and would make Christianity appear 
to them, as it did to him, the perfection of philosophy. 
In his descriptions, likewise, of the Christian ceremo- 
nies, he evidently sought to represent them as being 
as simple as possible; and the stress which he laid on 
the Christian requirement of obedience to and imitation 
of God may have seemed to him likely to find favor with 
at least the two purest and greatest of the Antonines. 
But while Justin was an Apologist, there is nothing to 
show that he consciously misrepresented facts. His 
character was too rugged and bold for such dishonesty. 
His sneers at the worship of the emperors and at the 
deification of Antinous are certainly not the language 
of a sycophant. His bold arraignment of the treatment 
of the Christians as unjust and irrational shows him a 
man who would speak the truth ; while the willingness 
to suffer and die rather than deny their Lord is of itself 
a sufficient proof that Justin and his fellow-Christians 
were not the men knowingly to misstate facts. More- 
over, his teaching in the Apology and in the Dialogue 
is essentially the same, though the persons addressed 
were very different. We may positively conclude that 
when Justin speaks from his own knowledge, we may 
trust him absolutely. His testimony, therefore, to the 
condition of the Church is that of one who honestly rep- 
resented, so far as his purpose called for it, and so far 
as his peculiarities of thought allowed, the real Chris- 
tian Church of the post-apostolic age. He defended no 
party but the Church itself, and he did so as honestly 
and as earnestly as he could. 


I. So far as church organization is concerned, Justin 
gives us but little information. It did not lie within 
his purpose to describe the internal organization of 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 259 


the Christian societies at all. He throws light on the 
subject only when describing the public worship of 
the Christians, the celebration of their two een 
great rites, and the distribution of their zation of the 
alms. Moreover, his effort manifestly was aan 
to exhibit the simplicity and harmlessness of these few 
ceremonies ; so that we could not expect from him a 
careful description of the relations sustained by the offi- 
cers of the Church to one another and to the whole 
body. 

What little he does say, however, is worth examina- 
tion. He describes, first, the rite of baptism.t The can- 
didates, he says, are instructed to pray God 
with fasting for the remission of past sins, the 
Church praying and fasting with them. They are then 
taken where there is water, and are “regenerated,” ? as 
the others had been ; “for in the name of God the Father 
and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, 
and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing 
with water.? . . . This washing is also called illumina- 
tion,* since they who learn these things are illuminated 
in their understandings.” The new member is then 
brought, writes Justin,> to where “the brethren” are 
assembled, where “ we offer prayers in com- 
mon for ourselves, and for the one who has 
been illuminated, and for all others in every place, that 
we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned 
the truth, by our works to be found good citizens and 
keepers of the commandments. . . . After the 
prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. 


Baptism. 


Prayers. 


The kiss. 


1 Ap. i. 61. 
2 ἀναγεννῶνται. On the doctrine of baptism, see below. 
8 τὸ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι τότε λουτρὸν ποιοῦνται. 


3. φωτισμός. 5. ἌΡΗΣ 60. 


260 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


Then there is brought to the president of the brethren? 
The Ev- bread and a cup of water and wine, and he 
charist. having received them renders praise and 
glory to the Father of all, through the name of the Son 
and of the Holy Spirit, and offers at length thanks- 
giving? for being counted worthy of these things from 
Him.” When he has concluded the prayers and thanks- 
giving, all the people present give assent by saying 
Amen. Then they whom we call deacons give to those 
present to partake of the bread and wine and water, 
and carry it away to the absent. Afterwards, Justin 
adds,’ “we continually remind one another of 
these things. The wealthy among us help 
the needy, and we are always together. . . . And on the 
Public wore Gay which is called the day of the Sun, there 
ΣΡ one is an assembly of all who live in cities or 
the week.  gountry to one place, and the memoirs of the 
Apostles and the writings of the prophets are read as 
longas time permits. Then, when the reader has ceased, 
the president gives verbal‘ instruction and invitation ® 
to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise 
together and pray.” The Eucharist is celebrated, and 
afterward “they who are well to do and are willing 
give, each according to his own free choice, what he 
wills ; and what is collected is deposited with the presi- 
dent for the relief of the needy.” 

Now, so far as the organization of the Christian so- 
cieties is concerned, these passages contain only the 
following items of importance :— 


Charity. 


1 Or, to the presiding brother. προσφέρεται τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν 
ἀδελφῶν. 

9 > , 5ΕΒΝ, ‘ 6 

2 εὐχαριστίαν ... ἐπὶ πολὺ ποιεῖται. 

5 Δ: 1. 67: 4 διὰ λόγου. 

5 πρόκλησιν. Some editions read, παράκλησιν, exhortation. 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 261 


We infer from them that there was but one society or 
“church” in each community. Such seems to be the 
fair inference from the expression “there is 

Ae Taye One church 

an assembly of all those in cities and country in each 

” } locality. 
to one place.” There was but one congrega- 
tion in each locality. If this be thought incredible in 
for example so large a place as Rome, where the Chris- 
tians must have been too numerous to meet all together, 
the reply may be made that Justin none the less re- 
garded the local church as a unit, and that if several 
meeting-places be assumed, they must have been consid- 
ered as but parts of one assembly. 

We infer, further, from his language that the local 
society had a permanent president. This follows not so 
much from the expression, “the president of Nparaanent 
the brethren,” for that might be translated president. 
“the brother who is presiding,” but from the statement 
that the alms of the society were deposited with the 
president, who was therefore the permanent agent of 
the society for the distribution of its charity. He also 
presided at the public assembly, preached 
and administered the Eucharist. The dea- "°°" 
cons were his assistants, and he appears to have come 
to control the duties which the deacons were originally 
ordained to discharge. 

But why did Justin designate the chief officer as 
“the president”? Was it simply from the wish to 
avoid technical terms? Yet he mentions why the 
the “deacons,” and in his account of bap- Mata’ 
tism? he uses the technical term “regenera- ®t given. 
tion” with marked emphasis. Moreover, “bishop” 
and “presbyter” would not have been unfamiliar terms 


1 Acts vi. 2 Ap. i. 61. 


262 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


to the pagans.1 The same term used by Justin, or 
one similar to it, is also found in Hermas,? though there 
applied, expressly in one instance, and probably in 
others, to “the presbyters.” It was the natural phrase 
for our Apologist to use, if for any reason he preferred 
not to give the title of the officer in question. May 
we not conjecture that his avoidance of both “bishop” 
and “presbyter” was due to the fact that their use 
varied in different churches, and even in the same 
church? It is a significant fact that the term “bishop” 
is not applied in extant writings to the chief officer of 
the Roman Church until a period later than Justin. 
Forty years earlier it had “come to be used in the 
churches of Asia, as the genuine epistles of Ignatius 
show,’ for the particular title of the presiding presby- 
ter. About Justin’s period Hegesippus applies the term 
to Symeon of Jerusalem,* as Polycrates also does® to 
Polycarp, Thraseas, and other pastors of Asia Minor. 
But not only does Clement of Rome, at the close of 
the first century, use “bishop” and “presbyter” con- 
vertibly, and with the implication that there was a 
plurality of such officers at the head of the local 
church ;* but Ignatius himself is significantly silent 
in his epistle to the Romans, as to any presiding 
officer in that place, as is also Polycarp in his letter 
to the Philippians. The testimony of Hermas concern- 


1 See Hatch’s Organization of the Early Christian Churches, 
Lect. II. 

2 Vis. ii. 4. σὺ δ᾽ ἀναγνώσεις eis ταύτην τὴν πόλιν μετὰ τῶν 
πρεσβυτέρων τῶν προϊσταμένων τῆς ἐκκλησίας. Vis. ii. 2; ili. 9. 
τοῖς προηγουμένοις τῆς ἐκκλησίας. 

8 See not only Ad Polyc. 1, but Ad Eph. 1, 2, 4,5,6; Ad Mag. 
2S ΘΖ; ἊΝ) ὙΠ}: 1. 2; 3, etc. 

4 Eus. H. E. iv. 22. 5 Thid., v. 24. 

δ See Ad Cor. 21, 42, 44, ete. 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 263 


ing the organization of the Roman Church is obscure. 
His language seems to associate the episcopate with the 
executive work of the church, and the presbyterate with 
the work of teaching and ruling;? but no such separa- 
tion of titles as to prove distinct offices can be dis- 
cerned in his pages. Hegesippus also states® that on 
his arrival at Rome he “drew up a list of the succes- 
sion down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus,” — 


1 See Lightfoot’s Commentary on Philippians; Essay on the 
Christian Ministry. 

2 See Vis. ii. 2: “ Tell those who rule (τοῖς προηγουμένοις) the 
Church to direct their ways in righteousness.” Vis. ii. 4: “ You 
will write therefore two books [or copies, βιβλιδάρια], and send 
one to Clement and one to Grapte. Clement will then send (his) 
to the foreign cities, for to him has this duty been intrusted (ἐκείνῳ 
yap ἐπιτέτραπται) ; and Grapte will admonish the widows and or- 
phans; and thou shalt read it to this city along with the presbyters 
who preside over the church (τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τῶν προϊσταμένων τῆς 
ἐκκλησίας). Observe here not only presbyters as controlling the 
worship of the church, but Clement singled out as the church 
organ of communication with other churches. There is nothing to 
show whether Clement was but one of the presbyters, or whether 
he was regarded as having a distinct office; but the impression is 
made by the language that he was the church’s executive and 
probably its presiding presbyter. Vis. iii. 5, “ apostles, bishops, 
teachers, and deacons” named as the officers of the church. Prob- 
ably “teachers ” represents “ presbyters,” and “ bishops,” the chief 
presbyters, as executive officers; but, as Lightfoot admits, the 
terms may designate “ the one presbyteral office in its twofold as- 
pect.” Vis. iii. 9: “TI say to you who preside (προηγουμένοις) over 
the church and hold the first seats (τοῖς mpwroxabeSpirais),” etc. 
Sim. ix. 25: “ Apostles and teachers who preached to the whole 
world,” ete. If this refer to others besides the founders of Chris- 
tianity, it describes only the teaching work of church officers 
without discriminating their offices. Sim.ix. 27: “Bishops given 
to hospitality . . . never failed to protect the widows .. . and 
maintained a holy conversation.” Here the administrative and 
executive work of the “bishop” appears; but whether the word is 
applied to ordinary presbyters, or only to the chief, is uncertain. 

ὃ Eus. H. E. iv. 22. 


264 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


thus, while evidently testifying to the existence of a 
single chief ruler in the Roman Church at and before 
his time, not giving his title. At a little later date 
indeed than Justin, Dionysius of Corinth wrote to the 
Roman Church, and spoke of “your blessed bishop 
Soter;”! but Irenzus, who was familiar with the 
usages of both Asia and Rome, calls Polycarp in one 
place? a “bishop,” and in another? a “presbyter,” and 
in his letter to Victor of Rome,* speaks of “the pres- 
byters preceding Soter in the government of the church 
which thou dost now rule.” Furthermore, none of the 
extant epitaphs of the Roman bishops give the title 
“Episcopus ” during the second century, nor even later.® 
It would thus seem that the title applied to the pre- 
siding officer of the Christian societies still varied in 
Justin’s time in different localities, and perhaps in the 
same localities as well. Such a state of things would 
at least harmonize with Justin’s failure to mention the 
official title of the president. We may suppose that, 
not wishing to enter into more particulars than were 
necessary, nor to explain the different usages and per- 
haps the different opinions which existed in the 
churches, he used a term which would apply to all 
the modifications of government which might be found 
in all the Christian societies of the Empire. 

But however this may have been, the president was 
but one of “the brethren,” merely the leader of their 
No sacerdo- devotions and the agent of their charity. No 


eet sacerdotal ideas were as yet attached to him 
1 Eus. H. E. iv. 23. 2 Adv. Her. iii. 3, 4. 
8 Kus. H. E. v. 20. 4 Kus. H. E. v. 24. 


5 De Rossi, Bulletina di Archeologia Christiana, Ann. II. 1864, 
p- 50, quoted by Hatch, “ Organization,” etc., p. 88. 

6 See also Dial. 116, where Justin teaches the priesthood of all 
believers. 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 265 


Justin makes no mention, however, — if we suppose the 
president to have been the “bishop,” — of any officers 
corresponding to the “presbyters.” No doubt this may 
be in part attributed to the fact that he was describing 
the public worship of the church, and not its discipline, 
nor in detail its methods of instructing its members; 
yet the omission confirms the impression already made 
that in his time the chief officer had gone far towards 
monopolizing not only the original functions of the 
deacons, but also those of the presbyters. 

Slight as this evidence is, it accords with what we 
elsewhere learn of the progress of local church organi- 
zation during the second century. From the jystins de- 
beginning there was but one society estab- scription 


accords with 


lished in each locality. This was originally the Rooyen 
acts Ο 


governed by a body of equal presbyters or church or- 
4 . anization 
bishops. Their office, however, was at first racers 


chiefly disciplinary and executive, for the su- “πὰ cen™y: 
pernatural gifts of the apostolic Christians regulated to a 
large degree the conduct of the service. But toward the 
close of the apostolic age itself, the teaching function, 
which had always pertained in idea to the presbyter, was 
called into greater prominence, though an itinerant 
ministry of prophets and other supernaturally gifted 
teachers continued to exist with 10.358 But early in the 


1 T cannot accept Hatch’s theory of the origin of the episco- 
pate. See his “ Organization,” etc., Lect. II. The use of the 
term in the apostolic churches as synonymous with “ presbyter ”’ is 
clearly proved by Acts xx. 17, 28, as well as Tit. i. 5-7; and the 
term itself could as easily have been obtained by the Jewish 
Christian churches from the LXX. as by the Gentile Christians 
from the clubs. See Dr. Sanday’s article in the Expositor, Feb., 
1887, “ Origin of the Christian Ministry, 11., Criticism of Recent 
Theories.” 

2 See the Pastoral Epistles and Heb. xiii. 7, 8; 1 Pet. v. 1-3. 

3 See “ The Teaching of the Apostles,” 11, #2, 13. 


266 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


second century we find in the Asian churches, at the 
head of the local or congregational presbytery, a per- 
manent president or pastor, called the bishop, who was 
the centre of both the administrative and liturgical and 
disciplinary service of the society. With him appear 
the presbyters as counsellors, but they are already sink- 
ing into a subordinate rank. The bishop is the per- 
manent pastor of the flock; and in this centralization, 
which is thus shown to have taken place, the Church 
found her safeguard against the disorganizing influ- 
ence of heresy. As the second century passed on, the 
importance and power of the local bishop naturally 
increased. The services of the assembly and the man- 
agement of the society’s affairs fell more and more into 
his hands. The deacons became his assistants in the 
administration of the finances and of the benevolent 
work of the Church. The latter especially, as Justin 
intimates, occupied a large part of his attention, and 
must have aided to augment the power of his office. 
The presbyters, while remaining the bishop’s council 
and assisting him in teaching and discipline, fell into 
the background, or became pastors of the subordinate 
chapels, as we would call them, which with the growth 
of the society became necessary. Such was in outline 
the movement in local church government which the 
second century witnessed. By the end of the century 
the elevation of the episcopate over the presbyterate 
had been so firmly established in nearly all the churches 
of the Empire,! that it was commonly supposed to have 
been the arrangement from the beginning. The slight 
elimpse which Justin gives of the services of the Chris- 


1 In Alexandria the process seems to have been slower than 
elsewhere. See Lightfoot’s Commentary on Philippians; Essay 
on the Christian Ministry, p. 225. 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 267 


tian assemblies reveals, so far as it goes, the same 
picture.! 

But was there any external bond uniting these local 
societies together? We reply that Justin gives no hint 
of such a thing. His expressions concerning nity of the 


: ete ‘ ot churches 
the unity of Christendom are the following. προ ἢ 


Expounding the Forty-fifth Psalm, he writes? spiritual. 

that those who believe in Christ are one soul and one 
synagogue and one church, even as the Word speaks, — 
“Hearken, O daughter, and behold and incline thine 
ear.” Again,’ Christ “hath made us a house of prayer 


1 It should be noted that I have used the term “ presbytery ” 
for the governing body of a local church or single society. So it 
is used in the New Testament. It was, since there was but one 
society in each locality, in one aspect equivalent to the modern 
“session,” in another equivalent to the modern “ presbytery,” as 
the terms are used in the American Presbyterian Church. Nor 
must the “bishop” of the early part of the second century be 
identified with the diocesan bishop of later times. He was the 
pastor of a single society. Had the “bishop” of the Ignatian 
epistles been associated with other bishops of the same province 
or of several adjacent localities in the government of the churches 
under them, or had he and his presbyters divided on terms of 
equality the members of their church, as it grew, into several so- 
cieties, each organized after the original pattern, and governed 
by the joint council, the result would have been what is now un- 
derstood as government by presbytery. But in fact the impor- 
tance of the chief pastor increased. The presbyters were given 
subordinate positions under him. The local church remained an 
organic unit, and the way was paved for the later diocesan epis- 
copate. Both presbyterianism and episcopacy therefore concur in 
the first change which passed over the apostolic churches; namely, 
the rise of the local bishop. From that point they diverge: the 
former preserving the idea of local self-zovernment after the orig- 
inal model, and securing the unity of all by a series of ascending 
courts; the latter continuing the development of the central 
personal power. 

2 Dial. 63. 8 Cf. Eph. v. 23-27. 

# Dial. 86. 


268 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


and worship.”! Christians are “the vine planted by 
God and Christ the Saviour,’? and are “the robe of 
Christ,” because in them the Seed of God, the Logos, 
dwells.2 They have believed “as one man” in God, and 
“being inflamed by the word of His calling, are the true 
high-priestly race.” They are the true Israel® Still 
more particularly, he states® that the prophet? pre- 
dicted that the wicked shall become subject to Christ, 
“and that all shall become as one child. Such a thing,” 
he adds, “as you may witness in the body; although 
the members are enumerated as many, all together are 
called one, and are a body.® For indeed a common- 
wealth® and an assembly,!° though many individuals 
numerically, yet, because they are one in fact,4 are 
called and addressed by the one appellation.” The 
unity of Christendom was therefore to Justin a most 
real, but at the same time a purely spiritual fact. 
There is nothing, either in the charges made against 
the Christians or in the Apologist’s defence, which 
indicates that a formal organization of the separate 
Christian societies into one external framework had 
arisen. Their unity was one of life and faith; and it 
is evident that Paul’s figures of a temple and a body 
were still controlling Justin’s language. This spiritual 
bond certainly united the churches closely together. 
We early learn of letters of inquiry or counsel sent 
from church to church,” or written by distinguished 
1 Cf. Eph. ii. 21, 22; 1 Tim. iii. 15; 1 Pet. ii. 5. 
2 918]. 110. 


8 Ap.i. 82. Cf. Dial. 54, 87. 4 Dial. 116. 
5 Cf. Dial. 119, 125, 130, 135. 8 Dial. 42. 
7 158. lili. 2, according to the LXX. 

8 Cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 12, etc. 9 δῆμος. 


10 ἐκκλησία. 
ll ὡς ἕν ὄντες πρᾶγμα ; as being one object. 
12 Cf, Clem. Rom. ad Cor. 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 269 


pastors to other churches than their own With the 
growth of heresy and the planting of new churches, 
the original societies, because the depositaries of apos- 
tolic traditions, rose in influence. Important churches 
and bishops attained commanding positions in the en- 
tire brotherhood. But all the evidence goes to show 
that the local churches were in the second century in- 
dependent. Christian unity lay in the consciousness of 
a common faith and life and hope. It divided the 
orthodox from the heretics. It made believers seem 
to themselves, though scattered over the Empire, one 
body, one race, one church. No church or bishop held 
any official primacy; yet the sense of spiritual oneness 
among the brethen and attachment to an established 
apostolic faith was so strong that it was not difficult in 
time to embody the Church’s unity in an external form.? 
Not yet, however, had that form been created. The 
Catholic Church of the post-apostolic age was simply 
the total number of those who professed the apostolic 
faith. In Justin we find the same spiritual conception 
of the Church that we find in Paul. He betrays no 
conception of the Church as a whole more advanced 
than that of his predecessors. While we know that 
the forces were already beginning to work which pro- 
duced a world-wide external organization with which 
the Church was identified, Justin stands on the older 
eround, and thus testifies to the falsity of the eccle- 
siastical claims of modern Rome, as we have found 


1 Compare the Epistles of Ignatius, Polycarp, Dionysius of 
Corinth. 

2 The first external expression of the Church’s unity was in 
the form of councils, consisting of the representatives of the 
churches of a certain district. They appear to have been held 
irregularly, and had no binding authority. See Hatch’s Organiza- 
tion of the Early Christian Churches, Lect. VII. 


270 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


him to do to the claims of some modern critics that in 
his age Catholic Christianity first began. 


II. What, then, was the faith by which these early 
Christians were united, and which they claimed to have 
ac received from the Apostles? To this ques- 
faith of the tion we are naturally led as the conclusion 
Sane of all our inquiries. 

In seeking a reply to this question from Justin, we 
have only to abstract from his statements of doctrine 
rane that philosophical element which we haye 
Gped from found he introduced into his Christianity. 

j By his philosophy he endeavored to under- 
stand and explain Christianity; and the effects of this 
upon his theology were so great as to modify nearly 
every statement by him of the Christian belief. And 
yet, as was remarked in a previous lecture, the two 
elements, the philosophical and the Christian, are 
equally evident in his expressions. He believed much 
which his philosophy could not appropriate or could 
only rationalize away. His philosophy was clearly 
superimposed upon his Christianity. Not only techni- 
cal terms, taken from the language of the Church, but 
also beliefs which his philosophy never would have 
created, and which therefore must have come from his 
adopted religion, are found on his pages. Finally, his 
close connection with the body of orthodox believers, 
his confessed reliance on apostolic teaching, and his hor- 
ror of heresy make it certain that while his views were 
modified by philosophical influences, he is, if allowance 
for these modifications be made, a competent witness to 
the faith of the early Church. 


Oe (1) The first point to be noticed in the 
Christ. faith of the Church as witnessed by Justin, 


1 Lect. IV. 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 271 


is that the divine-human person of Christ was its central 
article. 

On the one hand, the reality of Christ’s humanity, 
and the facts of His birth, life, death, resurrection, and 
ascension formed the historical foundation on pumanity of 
which the Church’s faith rested. His birth Chrst- 
from the Virgin is defended by Justin as the common 
belief! His gradual and natural growth into manhood 
is mentioned.2 Stress is laid on the reality of His 
humanity® in general, as well as of His sufferings 
in particular He was held to be sinless,® holy,® and 
righteous.’ He rose from the dead, and ascended to 
heaven, where He waits in glory the day of His final 
triumph. These facts, accepted on apostolic testimony 
in just that version which is recorded in our Gospels, 
were not only received as historical, but were the foun- 
dation, unquestioned by any save by those who by ques- 
tioning them were stamped as heretical, upon which the 
very existence of Christianity was held to repose. 

But, on the other hand, the divinity of Christ is even 
more emphatically mentioned by Justin as a funda- 
mental belief of the Christians. He was pj inity of 
worshipped and adored.® “We reasonably Chrst- 
worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the 
true God, holding Him in the second place;” and on this 
very account was Christianity esteemed madness by its 
enemies.” “Son of God” was, in fact, the term com- 
monly applied to Christ by the Christians; and while 


1 Ap. i. 33; Dial. 43, 54, 99, ete. 


2 Dial. 88. 3 Dial. 84, 98. 
# Dial. 98, 99, 103. 5 Dial. 23, 110. 
6 Dial. 98, 119. 7 Dial. 119. 

8 Ap. i. 45, 51, 52; Dial. 32, 34, 36, 85, etc. 

9 Ap. i. 6. ΠΑ i. 13. 


11 See Ap. i. 22. 


272 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


the term itself might be understood in a sense in which 
it could be applied to other men, it was not so under- 
stood by the Church when applied to Christ. It re- 
ferred to His relation to the Father before the creation 
of the world;1 and in this particular was the Church, 
according to Justin, separated from the extreme sect 
of Jewish Christians.2 Christ’s birth, therefore, was a 
divine incarnation. This was not merely Justin’s own 
doctrine. Of that we have already spoken. This was, 
according to his testimony, the faith of the Church. 
His explanation of the way in which Christ was divine 
is one thing. His testimony to the Church’s non-philo- 
sophical belief in Christ’s divinity is another thing, and 
quite distinguishable from the former. The latter was 
unquestioned except by heretics. Ebionism, or at least 
the belief of those who considered Christ a mere man, 
is distinctly declared’ by Justin not to be the opinion 
of the Church, but a “human doctrine,” or the teaching 
of man, in opposition to the teaching of the prophets 
and of Christ Himself. Moderate Jewish Christianity 
stood, as would appear from Justin’s language, in full 
accord with the rest of the Church in this belief® 
Marcion, on the contrary, is declared to be impious for 
denying that Christ is the Son of the Creator,® as well 
as for denying that the Creator is the Supreme God. 
Thus Christ was to the Christians the God-Man; Son 
of God from before the foundation of the world; the 
divine Logos who became man for the salvation of 
men,’ Justin’s doctrine of the Logos presupposes, as 


1 Ap. i. 23. 2 Dial. 48. 
8 See Ap. i. 5, 23, 63, ete. 4 Dial. 48. 
6 Dial. 47, 48. 6 Ap. i. 58. 


7 In Ap. ii. 10, Justin says, διὰ τὸ λογικὸν τὸ ὅλον τὸν φανέντα 
Ov ἡμᾶς χριστὸν γεγονέναι, καὶ σῶμα καὶ λόγον καὶ ψυχήν. This is, 


ieee ς Ξ σα 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 278 


we have previously observed, the doctrine of John as 
the accepted faith of the Church. He does not write 
as one establishing a new belief, but as one defending 
and explaining an admitted belief. Dean Mansel has 
well remarked that the earliest heresies found it easier 
to deny the humanity than the divinity of Christ, and 
thus testify to the universal belief of the Christians in 
the latter.t In like manner, in Justin’s time was the 
divinity of Christ a fundamental article of Christianity. 
As such it was defended and explained. We repeat 
that the attempt, apparent in Justin, to reason out the 


perhaps, the most difficult passage to interpret in Justin’s books. 
I believe, however, that he wished to oppose the views of those 
who, like Marcion, divided Christ. The whole Logos appeared 
in Christ; and the whole Christ, physical and rational, was the 
appearing of the Logos. The body of Christ was produced in 
the womb of the Virgin by the Logos (Ap.i. 33); the Logos Him- 
self dwelt in this body. And then Justin adds, to make the enu- 
meration complete, that the ψυχήν (human soul; see Dial. 105) of 
Christ contained also the manifestation of the Logos. Certainly 
Justin recognized in Christ three parts,— body and logos and 
soul. But the order of the words shows that Justin did not mean 
by these terms to enumerate the parts of Christ’s humanity, for 
then he would surely have said, body and soul and logos (or rea- 
son). By logos he therefore meant Christ’s divinity, and, besides 
it, attributed to Him a real body and a human soul. There is 
nothing to show how he defined the relation of the Logos to the 
soul in Christ, just as he does not define the relation of the Logos 
to the human reason generally (see Lect. [V.). Though his lan- 
guage here looks Apollinarian, the probability is that he did not 
anticipate that heresy. So Otto (sub loco), Weizsiicker (Jahrb. 
fiir deutsche Theol., 1867, p. 96, note), and Von Engelhardt (Das 
Christenthum Justins, p. 121, where the various views of the pas- 
sage are given). See also Dorner’s History of the Doctrine of 
the Person of Christ (Eng. trans.), div. i. vol. i. p. 277. Dial. 105, 
in which Justin shows that by Ψψυχή he understood the immortal 
spirit and not the mere animal life of man, seems to have been 
overlooked by those who make him a trichotomist. 
1 Gnostic Heresies, Lect. VIII. 
18 


274 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


relation of the Son to the Father was one thing; the 
belief in Christ’s pre-existent, divine Sonship with the 
worship of Him as God manifest in the flesh was an- 
other thing. The belief occasioned the philosophical 
efforts to explain the mystery; philosophy did not 
create the belief. This is the manifest order as the 
matter lies in the testimony of Justin. 

(2) Necessarily connected with belief in Christ’s 
(2) The divinity was the Church’s substantial faith 
HEN in the Trinity. 

Justin’s testimony to this is the more significant from 
the fact that his philosophy tended to modify the doc- 
trine which we believe was taught by the Apostles, 
and would certainly at least never have led him to it. 
When describing his theology we spoke of the way in 
which, under the influence of philosophy, he empha- 
sized the divine transcendence. At the same time, in- 
deed, we found that his doctrine of God contained many 
elements of another type, so that two conceptions of 
Deity seemed to be contending in his mind,— the one 
derived from his philosophy; the other from a living 
sense of God’s moral character and affectionate interest in 
men, and due doubtless to his Christianity. Still Justin 
thought of God as above and beyond the world, and of 
the Logos as a divine being produced by the Father’s 
will out of Himself, and through whom alone God’s re- 
lation to the world is mediated. So, as to the relation 
of the Son to the Father, we found Justin describing 
the Logos as not personally eternal, and yet as neither 
a creation of nor an emanation from God. While nu- 
merically distinct from the Father, He is yet represented 
as one with Him in such a way as to imply that the 
distinction between them referred to their personalities, 
but not to their nature. At the same time He is sub- 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 275 


ordinate to the Father, not only in office but in being, 
since He was produced as a distinct subsistence by the 
Father’s will. But to the Logos pertains, according to 
Justin’s thought, the whole work of mediation between 
God and the world. His affinity with human reason 
is very close, and His activity in human history has 
been constant. So much stress was thus laid on the 
idea of the Logos that little place was left for the work 
of the Spirit. Though continually using the phrase 
“prophetic spirit,’ Justin represents the Logos as the 
real author of prophecy! Quoting the words spoken 
to the Virgin by the angel, “ Behold, thou shalt con- 
ceive of the Holy Spirit,” Justin says that it is wrong 
to understand here the “ Spirit” as anything else than 
the Logos, who Himself caused the Virgin to conceive 
and became incarnate in her? Significant variations 
of phrase from that of the New Testament indicate the 
same habit of thought. Instead of Saint John’s “ wor- 
ship in spirit and in truth,’ Justin has, “We worship, 
honoring in reason and truth.”? Believers are those “in 
whom dwells the Seed from God, the Logos,” * rather 
than those in whom God or Christ dwells by the Spirit. 
The doctrine of “the Seminal Logos, of whom all men 
partake,” ὃ while not inconsistent necessarily with the 
doctrine of the Spirit, manifestly takes its place in 
Justin’s mind. These examples will suffice to show 
that the Apologist’s own thought strongly tended away 
JSrom the doctrine of a Trinity. It tended toa sort of 
dytheism, although it held to the consubstantiality of 
the Logos and the Father of all. 

What means, then, the fact that in spite of all this 


1 See Ap. i. 86; ii. 10. 2 Ap. i. 33. 
8 Ap.i. 6. λόγῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. 4 Ap. i. 32. 
5 See Lect. IV. 


276 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


Justin testifies to the worship of three divine persons 
by the Christians? Such worship was involved in the 
already established formula of baptism, “in the name of 
God the Father and Lord of all, and of our Saviour Jesus 
Christ, and of the Holy Spirit;”1 or, as Justin adds in 
the same connection, “in the name of God the Father 
and Lord of all,’ and “of Jesus Christ who was cruci- 
fied under Pontius Pilate,” and “of the Holy Spirit, 
which predicted through the prophets all things con- 
cerning Jesus.” So he elsewhere explicitly declares 
“we worship the Son, holding him in the second place 
and the prophetic Spirit in the third order.”?. That he 


TAD 1: 61. 

2 Ap. i. 18. vidv... ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ ἔχοντες πνεῦμά τε προφη- 
τικὸν ἐν τρίτῃ τάξει, . . . τιμῶμεν. See Αρ. 1. 6, 65, 66. In ΑΡ. i. 
6, he mentions the objects of Christian worship as follows: “ The 
most true God and Father of righteousness and temperance and 
other virtues (who is) free from wickedness, and the Son who 
came from Him and taught us these things, and the host of other 
good angels who follow and are like Him and the prophetic 
Spirit.” This mention of angels is to be explained by Justin’s 
desire to set over against the bad angels and demons whom 
pagans worshipped the whole number of good celestial beings 
as objects of Christian veneration, thus showing that universally 
the Christians adore what is good. His object was to prove that 
Christians are not atheists. So far from this, he says, they have 
as objects of reverence a great number of heavenly beings, but all 
of them good. Certainly Justin’s language was misleading; for 
that he did not really mean that Christians in the strict sense wor- 
shipped angels is proved by the fact that in Ap. i. 13, 61, 65, 66, 
he names only the Father, Son, and Spirit as objects of worship. 
His language in Ap. i. 6 shows, however, that the subordination of 
the Son and Spirit to the Father was so strongly impressed on his 
thought that it was not difficult for him thus to include angels as, 
in a general way, objects of veneration. He did not have a Jew’s 
jealousy of whatever might seem to infringe on monotheism, but 
was more concerned for the worship of the good than of the One. 
This was another result of the course by which Justin approached 
Christianity ; and the isolated expression before us betrays his 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 277 


ascribed divinity to the Logos, even to the extent of 
making Him of the same substance with the Father, 
we have already stated; but his testimony ini ew 

᾿ Pay e Spirit. 
concerning the Spirit is more remarkable. 
For though his own theology had really no place for 
the Spirit, yet Justin speaks of the Spirit as not only 
an object of worship, but as the power of Christian life. 
Not only is the Spirit repeatedly represented as having 
spoken through the prophets, but certain prophecies 
are distinguished from those uttered in the name of 
the Father and from those uttered in the name of 
Christ as being specially prophetic of future things, 
with the evident implication that they were spoken in 
the name of the Spirit.2 The province of the Spirit lay, 
according to Justin, in the domain of Christian life. 
The prophecies just referred to as having been spoken 
in the name of the Spirit were those which predicted 
the progress and victory of the Christian religion. The 


own peculiar cast of mind, but not the belief of the Church. 
See Von Engelhardt’s Das Christenthum Justins, p. 146, and his 
quotation from Nitsch, that “ to the Gentile Christians, as long as 
they did not scientifically reflect, there was not the same need of 
a strict monotheism as to the Jewish Christians,” which was be- 
cause, Von Engelhardt adds, “in rising from polytheism to the 
truth of divine unity, the conception of God became abstract and 
easily consistent with the thought of subordinate beings who mani- 
fested the powers of Deity.” The view that Justin classed angels 
with the Spirit and regarded the Spirit as an angel is an un- 
natural construction of his language, and opposed to his general 
representation of the Spirit. So the rendering, “The Son who 
taught us and the host of other good angels these things,” is a 
mere effort to escape difficulties. Dr. E. A. Abbott (Modern Re- 
view, July, 1882, p. 568) regards this passage “as a remnant of 
the undeveloped Philonian doctrine, whereby the Logos is but the 
elder and foremost of a number of Logoi, Angels, or Powers.” 

1 Ap. i. 31, 32, 35, 40, ete.; Dial. 7, 25, 32, 34, ete. 

2 Ap. i. 39. 


278 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


aged believer who led Justin to Christ is represented 
as maintaining that the mind of man cannot see God 
unless instructed by the Holy Spirit.1 Justin declares 
to Trypho that Christians have not believed fables, but 
words filled with the Spirit of God.2 “What need 
have I,” he cries, “of that other baptism, who have been 
baptized with the Holy Ghost?”® The special “ gifts” 
which Christian men and women possessed are said to 
have been received from the Spirit of God* It would 
appear from these expressions that he conceived of the 
Spirit as the agent employed by the Father and the Logos 
in operating upon men’s minds. Thus alone can we 
understand him, when he writes of the Spirit as speak- 
ing through the prophets, and yet of the divine Logos 
as the author of prophecy. So likewise he declares 
that Joshua received strength from the Spirit of Jesus ;® 
and in one particularly notable passage ® he uses this 
language: “Though the devil is ever at hand to resist 
us, and anxious to seduce all to himself, yet the Angel of 
God, that is the Power of God sent to us through Jesus 
Christ, rebukes him, and he departs from us.” This latter 
passage manifestly refers to the Holy Spirit.’ It is true, 
indeed, that Justin’s idea of the Spirit was vague. In no 


1 Dial. 4. 2) Dials)9: 

3 Dial. 29. 

4 Dial. 88. χαρίσματα ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ ἔχοντας. 
5 Dial. 113, 6 Dial. 116. 


7 See Neander’s Church History, Eng. trans., i. 609; also Otto’s 
note in his edition of Justin. The fact that Justin also called the 
Logos an angel shows that his use of the word here does not 
necessarily imply that he considered the Spirit a creature. The 
phrase, “ The Power of God,” ete., may be understood. person- 
ally or not. The Spirit was, at any rate, to Justin a distinct being 
sent to men from God through Christ, whom Justin represents as 
a person (angel), though in his own thought he may have regarded 
him as impersonal. 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 279 


case does he clearly declare the personality of the Spirit, 
though he often seems on the verge of doing so. Nev- 
ertheless the Spirit was to him a distinct object of wor- 
ship, and the immediate power of a Christian’s life ; and 
this although his own theology felt no need of the Spirit 
in order to explain the philosophy of Christianity. 

Thus Justin in spite of himself testifies to the three- 
fold object of Christian worship. He even finds?! in 
Plato an adumbration of the first, second, and third 
powers in the universe, though in doing so he misun- 
derstands and misrepresents that philosopher. Justin’s 
own conception is vague, or, when not vague, unscriptural 
in certain important points. He unduly subordinates 
the Son to the Father, and the Spirit to both. He hovers 
between the ideas of the Spirit as divine Influence and 
as a divine Person. But he declares these three to be 
the divine objects of Christian worship. He describes 
the functions of each in the economy of salvation in 
nearly the same way in which they are described in 
the New Testament. He thus most effectively testifies 
to the traditional faith of the Church in the Father, Son, 
and Spirit as the threefold object of Christian worship, 
and the threefold source of Christian life. 

(3) Furthermore, according to Justin, the Church 
believed in a redemption wrought out by (3) Redemp- 
the Son of God through His incarnation, °™ 
death, and resurrection. 

Here, again, we must allow for the influence of Jus- 
tin’s philosophy upon his statements. The main facts 


1 Ap. i. 60. 

2 The most marked exception is his failure to bring out the 
Spirit’s work in regeneration (Ap. i. 61); but this was due to 
the stress which he laid on human freedom and activity in moral 
affairs. 


280 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


of his testimony concerning the work of Christ were 
exhibited when we discussed his theology! To him 
Christianity was supremely the full revelation of truth, 
because Christ was the incarnation of the divine Logos, 
In accordance with his exaltation of reason, he attrib- 
uted the evil of life to the subjection of man’s rational 
powers to the demons of ignorance and sin, and believed 
that if men be shown the truth, they have the power 
to recognize it and the ability to choose and obey it. 
Hence his favorite representation of Christ is as the 
Teacher. Christianity is the new law, and man’s great 
duty is obedience to Christ’s commands. 

What mean then, we again ask, the expressions which 
are scattered through his writings and which repre- 
sent Christ as saving men by His death and resur- 
rection? He is said to have brought us healing by 
becoming partaker of our sufferings? By His blood 
He cleanses believers.2 He endured all for our sakes 
and on account of our sins. By dying and rising He 
conquered death.2 “He became the beginning of an- 
other race, who have been born again by Him through 
water and faith and wood, which contains the mystery 
of the Cross.”® In baptism believers receive remission 
of sins’ by the blood of Christ.8 “ His Father caused 
Him to suffer in behalf of the human race.” ° The Jews 
did not know, when they inflicted the suffering upon 
Him, that He was “the eternal Priest and King and 
Christ.” 1° The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is not only 


1 Lect. IV. 5. Ap: 11:15} 1915]: 86. 157. 
8 Ap. i. 32; Dial. 18, 40, 54. 

4 Ap. i. 56, 70, 103; Dial. 63. 

5 Ap. i. 68. ® Dial. 138. 

7 Dial. 54. 8 Dialy 111: 

9. Dial. 95. 10 Dial. 96. 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 281 


in whole or in part repeatedly applied to Christ, but is 
quoted with such unusual accuracy as to seem to show 
that it was a specially familiar passage to the Christians, 
and that every clause of it was literally applied to Him. 
Christ is the Passover, whose blood will deliver from 
death those who have believed! Christ served for men 
even unto the cross, and acquired? them through its 
blood and mystery.? With great emphasis also does 
Justin represent Christ’s death and resurrection as a 
triumph over the demons Of this victory the Cross 
was the sign.® Death has come to the Serpent through 
Him who has been crucified, by coming to whom men 
also may be saved. The demons are now subject to 
His name and to the dispensation of His suffering.’ 
They are frequently exorcised in His name, so that His 
power over them is proved.’ Christ is now sitting at 
the right hand of the Father, waiting till He make His 
enemies His footstool.® 
It would seem impossible to mistake the significance 

of these expressions. Justin could only have received 
them from the faith of the Church. He had no thought 
of modifying that faith. In it he practically shared. 
Therefore he freely expressed it, although it had little in 
this case to do with the philosophical ideas which were 
controlling his intellectual apprehension of Christianity. 
It is true that neither in his representation of Chris- 
tianity as the new law nor in the stress which he laid 
on obedience as a condition of salvation, did Justin in- 
troduce a novelty. We have already remarked that the 

Ὁ Dial. 111. 2 κτησάμενος. 

8 Dial. 134. 

4 Ap. i. 46; ii. 6; Dial. 91, 131, etc. 

5 Ap. i. 55; Dial. 90, 91. 

® Dial. 91. 7 Dial. 30. 

8. Dial. 76. ® Dial. 26. 


282 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


tendency to a Christian legalism was characteristic of 
his time. We have suggested as causes of it precisely 
these philosophical ideas operating in union with the 
felt necessity of laying stress on Christian conduct and 
of upholding Christian character in the face of pagan- 
ism. But none the less does it appear that the Church’s 
faith rested not merely in the word of truth which 
Christ had spoken, but also in the redemption which 
Christ had wrought out by His death and resurrection. 
The power of Christ lay not only in His character and 
teaching, but in what He was believed to have done for 
men upon the cross. In that sign the Church was 
conquering. In His blood she was trusting. And 
though, in the confusion which was caused by the 
contact of Christian faith with the great world of pagan 
thought, by the awakening of speculation, by the stern 
practical necessities of the hour, the doctrine of redemp- 
tion was conceived in crude and fragmentary ways, yet 
the faith in redemption by the death of Jesus was 
fundamental and catholic, and is thus attested as the 
faith which had been received from the Apostles. 
(4) The (4) Finally, Justin testifies to the faith 
eee of the post-apostolic church concerning the 
pects of the spiritual privileges and future prospects of 
Christian. AS ce 
the Christian. 

(a) Christianity was the actual enjoyment of a new 

life in and from Christ. It is true, again, that this is 
not the phase of Christianity upon which 

(a) Christi- ; : : 
anityanew Justin lays most stress; but his testimony 
a to it is all the stronger for being incidental. 

Most obviously was it a new life in being a new mo- 
rality. Justin dwells upon the contrast between pagan 
vices and Christian virtues, and points his Imperial read- 
ers to the astounding moral change which had passed 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 283 


over the lives of their persecuted Christian subjects. 
This new morality was based upon a new standard 
of living, which had been derived from the A new mo- 
knowledge of the holy and loving char- ™"% 

acter of the true God, whom the Christians strove to 
imitate. The change of life had been caused by a 
new discovery of God through Jesus Christ. “We have 
been taught,” writes the Apologist, “and have been per- 
suaded, and do believe that He accepts those only who 
imitate the excellences which reside in Him, — tem- 
perance and justice and philanthropy, and as many 
virtues as are peculiar to a God who is called by no 
proper name.”* A new world had already formed itself 
in the Christian mind around the manifestation of God 
in Christ; and that divine revelation, as the Christians 
believed it to be, was the motive-power of the new 
morality which had made its appearance in them. 

As to the origin of this life in individuals, Justin 
expresses himself for the most part after almost a Pela- 
gian manner. Insisting on man’s full ability to repent 
and change his life, and seeing in Christianity the per- 
fection of that rational living of which heathen as well 
as Hebrew antiquity afforded examples, he could even 
speak of a man’s undertaking to be able to live according 
to Christ’s commands, and therefore choosing to be born 
again. We obtain in baptism the forgiveness of past 
sins; but Justin writes as if, after baptism, a Christian’s 
salvation depended on his own obedience. Of an im- 
mediate and unchangeable justification he says nothing.® 

1 Ap. i. 14, 25, 27; Dial. 110. 2 Ap. i. 10. 

8. See Lect. IV. 4 Ap. i. 61. 

5 Ap. i. 65; Dial. 44. 

6 In Dial. 116 we read, “ We who believed have been stripped 


of the filthy garments, 1. 6., of our sins;” but, just before, Justin 
speaks of the “prepared garments” as to be put on us in the 


284 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


Nevertheless, we discover in him the consciousness of 
God’s special favor to the believer, of a mystical rela- 
tionship to Christ, and of supernatural grace 
recelved in the sacraments, which proves 
that, with all his Pelagianism, he believed that Chris- 
tian life was a communion with, and a gift from God 
through Jesus Christ. “ Pray,” said the aged Chris- 
tian to the young Platonist, “that the gates of light 
may be opened to you; for these things cannot be per- 
ceived or understood at all, but only by the man to 
whom God and His Christ have imparted wisdom.” 4 
Christians, therefore, are a holy people, whom God has 
chosen.2, To them it has been granted to hear and 
understand and be saved by this Christ, and to recog- 
nize all the things revealed by the Father? They are 
the true Israel, begotten of faith and the Spirit. So 
Christ’s also is Christ represented as always present 
Presence. among them by His power,’ even as in them 
the Seed from God, namely, the Logos, dwells ;® and 
Christ, possessing the fulness of the Spirit, imparts 
grace to believers according as he deems each one 
The sacra. Worthy.’ Particularly in his idea of the 
mer sacraments does Justin combine rationalistic 
modes of expression with evident belief in their mys- 


Conversion. 


future kingdom, so that he evidently confined the stripping off of 
the old garments to forgiveness of past sins in baptism. 

1 Dial. 7. So see Dial. 30: “ Have received grace to know;” 
32: “A remnant left by the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth;” 
55: God has withheld from the Jews the ability (τὸ δύνασθαι) to 
discern the wisdom of the Scriptures (compare also 58, 119); 
116: the Power of God sent to us (i. e., the Spirit) through Jesus 
Christ. Compare also Ap.i. 10; Dial. 110, 131, 136, though these 
passages may be understood in a rationalistie sense. 

2 Dial. 119. 8 Dial. 121. 

4 Dial. 135 δ᾽ Dial. 54. δυνάμει. 

6 Ap. i. 32. 7 Dial. 57. 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 285 


tical’ efficiency. Thus baptism! was, on the one hand, 
the rite of initiation into the Church, and was adminis- 
tered to those who had been persuaded that 
what Christ taught was true, and undertook 
to be able to live accordingly. By it they “dedicated 
themselves to God” when they had been “made new 
through Christ,” —a phrase, however, by which Justin, 
as the following sentences show, merely meant, when 
they had been taught by Christ’s word and had accepted 
it. But, on the other hand, there was received in bap- 
tism the forgiveness of past sins; and the rite itself was 
commonly called “regeneration.” The rite, therefore, 
was identified with that which it represented, — was 
regarded as the appointed means of entrance, not only 
into the church, but into divine favor,2— was in conse- 
quence of Christ’s work the beginning of a new life; 
which, indeed, Justin says,a man assumed of himself, 
but from which the burden of past sins was removed, 
and through which the mind was “illuminated” so as 
faithfully to wait and work for the full salvation. In 
like manner the Eucharist was not common ‘he Eucha- 

food; “but as, through the Word of God ™* 

Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh, took 
both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we 
taught that the food over which thanks has been ren- 
dered through the prayer of the word which is from Him, 


Baptism. 


5. ἌΡ. 1. 61. 2 Ap. i. 61; Dial. 188. 

8 Dial. 43: a spiritual circumcision ; 86: a purification of the 
soul (ἡμᾶς βεβαπτισμένους ταῖς βαρυτάταις ἁμαρτίαις ἃς ἐπράξαμεν, 
διὰ τοῦ σταυρωθῆναι ἐπὶ τοῦ ξύλου καὶ δι’ ὕδατος ἁγνίσαι ὁ χρισ- 
τὸς ἡμῶν ἐλυτρώσατο). 

4 διὰ λόγου θεοῦ; i.e. (see Ap. i. 33), through the incarnation of 
the Logos. 

5 δι εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν ; i.e., through 
the repetition of the words of institution which Christ used, and of 


286, JUSTIN MARTYR. 


and by? which our blood and flesh through transmu- 
tation? are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that 
Jesus who was made flesh.”® Justin speaks of the 
Eucharist as a memorial of God’s goodness both in 
creation? and redemption,® and as the pure sacrifice of 
thanksgiving which the Christians offered everywhere 
to God. He cannot fairly be accused of the later 
doctrine of transubstantiation; but he nevertheless de- 
clares, like Ignatius’ before him and Irenzus® after 
him, that the consecrated bread and wine became the 
flesh and blood of Christ, and that by partaking of it 
even the bodies of believers were spiritually nourished. 
He attributed actual power to the Eucharist, as he did 
to baptism, and saw in both of them channels by which 
grace flowed from Christ to His people. He thus curi- 
ously combined with his rationalism a tendency toward 
a mechanical and mystical view of the sacraments; so 


which Justin in the next sentence gives an account. See Otto 
(sub loco), for various views of this disputed sentence. 

1 ἐξ. 

2 κατὰ μεταβολὴν; i. e., not in the common way, but as the re- 
sult of a change produced in the bread and wine. The Eucharis- 
tic elements nourished the bodies of believers, but after a heavenly 
manner (see Iren. iv. 18. 5), because, as the body of Jesus was 
the body of the incarnate Logos, so had the elements become the 
flesh and blood of Christ. Justin’s conception of the incarnation 
is the key to his conception of the Eucharist. Christ had a real 
body; yet the whole Christ, physical and spiritual, was the reve- 
lation of the Logos (Ap. ii. 10). The elements of the Eucharist 
were real bread and wine; yet the Logos had made them His flesh 
and blood, the manifestation of His being and power. See 
Weizsacker’s “ Die Theologie des Mirtyrers Justinus,”’ Jahrb. fiir 
deutsche Theol., 1867, pp. 96-99. 

8 Ap. i. 66. 4 Dial. 41. 

5 Ap. 1 66; 1913]: Al, 70, 117. 8 Dial. 28, 41. 

7 Ad Eph. 20; Ad Rom. 7; Ad Phil. 41. 

8 Adv. Her. iv. 18. 5. 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 287 


that, in spite of the way in which his philosophy led 
him to minimize the supernatural character of individual 
Christian life, he testifies to the Church’s faith in that 
life as a gift from God, and sustaining a constant rela- 
tion of dependence upon the work and power of the 
once crucified but now victorious Redeemer. So strong 
was that faith that, as we have just seen, it was already 
disposed to find in the two Christian sacraments a 
constantly repeated miracle. 

(Ὁ) But Christianity was still more emphatically to 
Justin and the Church a new and joyful hope. The 
tendency of his own thought was to con- (b) Christi 
ceive of salvation as future, and to direct its anity a new 
gaze on the glorious reward which the Mas- “” 
ter would bestow at the second advent on His faithful 
servants. Such was a natural attitude, also, in an age of 
persecution ; and therefore in describing Christian hope 
Justin uttered, in most particulars, the common mind of 
the Church. 

It is true that Christianity in its promises and ex- 
pectations gave definite expression to convictions of 
the human soul, which were already widely τι uttered in 
spread, and which pagan religion and cul- ΠΕΣ 
ture had uttered in divers parts and man- ™ankind. 
ners. Plato had reasoned of immortality. Future retri- 
bution was not only taught by the popular religions 
and described by the poets, but, with immortality, had 
been taught by philosophers. A future conflagration of 
the world was also a doctrine of the Stoics. Justin, 
however, did not hold these doctrines as they were 
taught by philosophy, but in the totally distinct form 
in which they were taught by Christianity ; and to them 
he added other doctrines which, as the resurrection, 
were scorned by philosophy, and could only have en- 


288 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


tered his system from the faith of the Church. That 
he was sensible, indeed, of the agreements between 
Christian hope and certain types of pagan thought is 
evident enough, since he expressly points them out2 
Not only so, but in his descriptions in the Apology of 
future blessedness, he uses phrases? which agree strik- 
ingly with the Platonic conception of divine reward, 
and which have seemed to some? inconsistent with the 
doctrine of a bodily resurrection. The inconsistency, 
however, is only apparent; and from the Dialogue we 
learn of Justin’s strong belief, not only in a literal res- 
urrection, but also in a visible reign of Christ with His 
risen people upon earth. Moreover, he plainly points 
out the differences between pagan and Christian hopes, 
and witnesses to the latter, not as these were influenced 
by paganism, but as they were taught by the facts and 
founders of original Christianity. 

We thus learn that the Christians were comforted 
in their trials and encouraged in their confession by the 
The second expectation of Christ’s visible return. In 
advent. this sense was the prophecy understood, “ He 
shall be the desire of all nations.”* This hope was held 
alike by those who expected and by those who denied 
that at the advent Christ would establish for a thousand 
years a visible kingdom at Jerusalem. Of Chiliasm we 
have spoken in a previous lecture. It was 
a widely spread but by no means universal 
belief of the post-apostolic Church, as Justin expressly 
states. But all shared in the belief in a visible and 


Chiliasm. 


1 Ap. i. 18, 20. 2 ἀφθάρτους. ἀπαθεῖς. 

8 So Aubé’s Saint Justin, Philosophe et Martyr, part iii. ch. iv. 
and ν. 

4 Ap.i. 82. 5 Lect. IIL 

6 Dial. 80. 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 289 


literal second advent. Then will Christ both finally 
conquer His enemies! and judge the world? Chiliasm 
only gave a particular and more definite form to the 
universal expectation of the future and public victory 
of Christ. In this expectation all Christians shared, 
and by it they were consoled amid the existing hatred 
of the world. With the advent, moreover, ‘The resur- 
the resurrection of the dead was expected to ‘tion. 
occur; and upon this non-philosophical doctrine Justin 
is particularly explicit.2 In the Apology, in which 
Chiliasm does not appear, the advent and the resurrec- 
tion and the judgment are all spoken of as if con- 
temporaneous. In the Dialogue Justin brings out his 
Chiliastic views. The advent, he says, will be preceded 
by the coming of Elijah,* and will secure the conquest of 
Christ’s enemies, and particularly of the “man of sin,” 
whose previous appearance will bring the climax of the 
Church’s sufferings.® He distinguishes also two resur- 
rections,’ after the second of which the general judg- 
ment will ensue.’ Christ, at His coming, will gather the 
Church to Jerusalem, and give her rest. Justin does 
not teach the restoration of the Jews nor of the Jewish 
ritual. He regards the manifestation of the “man of 
sin” as impending? but expresses no opinion as to how 
near the advent may be, though apparently The juag- 
thinking it not very far off° With it was παν: 
connected the judgment of the whole world by Christ, 


1 Dial. 110, 121. 2 Ap. i. 28, 52; Dial. 35. 
8 Ap. i. 8, 18, 19, 52° Dial. 69, 80, 81, 113, 117. 

4 Dial. 49. 6 Dial |91. 

6 Dial. 32, 110. Ziel -Si,: 1.13. 

8 Dial. 81, 117. ® Dial. 32. 


10 Dial. 28. “So short a time is left you in which to become 
proselytes,” i. e., Christians. 
11 Ap. i. 8, 53, 68; Dial. 35, 38, 58, 81, 118, 132. 
19 


290 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


after which it was believed that the righteous will en- 
The final re. @2 UPOD incorruption, and freedom from suf- 
ward of the fering, and everlasting fellowship with God, 
Serr ibaa swalll reign with Him in immortality and 
glory! while the wicked will be cast with the demons 
into the eternal fire of hell? Of the state of 

the dead before the resurrection Justin says 

little. He only intimates that the final reward of the 
Sr aerin righteous will not be received till after the 
destroyed by resurrection.2 When the judgment has been 
concluded, the world will be destroyed by fire.4 
Such was the outlook of these early Christians into the 
future. Amid the hatred and distrust of the world, in 


Hell. 


1 Ap. i. 10, 13, 18, 21, 42, 52, 57; Dial. 46, 69, 116, 117. 

2 Ap. i. 28, 44, 45, 52, 117. 

8 Jn Dial. 80, he blames heretics for maintaining that at death 
their souls go immediately to heaven. He referred, doubtless, to 
the Gnostic idea of immediate participation through γνῶσις in 
divine blessedness (cf. Iren. v. 31. 1), an idea which was united 
with denial of the resurrection. In Dial. 99, he says that the Jews 
fancied that Christ, like a common mortal, would remain in Hades. 
Yet by death Christians enter on the heavenly kingdom (Ap. i. 
11). He thus seems to have distinctly identified heaven with 
the post-resurrection state, but to have expected blessedness also 
immediately after death. The pseudo-quotation from Jeremiah 
(Dial. 72), “ The Lord remembered His dead, who slept in the 
grave, and descended to them to preach His salvation,” may in- 
dicate belief in Christ’s descensus ad inferos and the then preach- 
ing to the Old Testament saints; but Justin does no more than 
quote the passage. In Dial. 119, he says, “ Along with Abraham 
we [Christians] shall inherit the Holy Land.” Abraham there- 
fore was regarded as, with the other pious dead, still waiting for 
the full reward. 

4 Ap. i. 206. Aubé (Saint Justin, p. 182) is wrong in saying 
that Justin confounded the fire which is to destroy the world with 
the fire of hell. He keeps them distinct. Of the future confla- 
gration, however, he only states that it will not be, like the Stoic 
ἐκπύρωσις, a natural process, but a divine judgment. 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 291 


the face of the constant liability to be called to suffer 
for their faith, and the probable increase of persecution 
with the diffusion of their doctrines, these hopes sus- 
tained them; and as the night grew darker, these stars 
gleamed the more brightly in their sky. And « ohrist our 
their hopes were manifestly summed up in >°P®” 

the hope of Christ. They were founded on belief in 
Christ’s divine Sonship, His resurrection from the 
dead, and His appointment by the Father as universal 
King and Judge. Only the historical reality of His 
life and death and resurrection, and the apostolic 
teaching concerning His person and His work, will 
account for the form and the strength of Christian hope 
in the post-apostolic age. The tenacity with which 
belief in a future literal resurrection of the body was 
held by all except heretics, can be explained only by 
the universal belief in Christ’s resurrection, even as this 
latter belief in turn can be only explained by the fact 
of His resurrection itself. The universal expectation of 
Christ’s return rested on faith in both His divinity and 
resurrection, and harmonized His divinity with the lowli- 
ness of His recorded life. It was a hope in Christ and 
of Christ to which Justin testifies as the joyful power 
of Christian life; and if it encouraged the early be- 
lievers by its promises, it sprang from their unquestion- 
ing faith in the facts, attested by Apostles, of Christ’s 
divine Sonship, and His accomplished victory over sin 
and death. 


As, then, we bring to a close our examination of Jus- 
tin’s testimony to early Christianity, we can 
better judge the man and his Church. 

It is impossible, we think, in the light of his testi- 
mony, to believe that post-apostolic Christianity was 


Conclusion. 


292 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


caused by any fusion of previously hostile Pauline and 
Jewish parties; for it avowedly regarded Jewish Chris- 
Post apos-  tianity as a weakness and an imperfect type, 
tolic Chris- -. : : gts . 

tianity not it denied any peculiar privileges in the 

It of - 

ae pean Church to the Jew, it was entirely uncon- 
of Paulinism scious of any division having existed among 


with Jewish 

views. the Apostles but considered their united mis- 
sion to have been to all nations, and it accepted our 
four Gospels as the apostolic and authoritative record 
of Christ’s life. To suppose that this testimony of the 
post-apostolic Church was mistaken, and that in the 
course of two or three generations the Christians had 
rewritten the history of their origin, and had persuaded 
themselves that their own fictions were divine truths 
on which salvation depended and for which they cheer- 
fully died, is, apart from the many historical and crit- 
ical facts which disprove the supposition, to argue by 
a method which is capable of making any evidence 
appear worthless. 

Nor can we believe, in the light of Justin’s testi- 

mony, that post-apostolic Christianity was caused, so 
Nor created far as its essential character was concerned, 
cratic by the union of Pauline or apostolic teach- 
Christianity ) ing with Hellenic culture ; for while we have 
ism. found Hellenic elements entering largely into 
combination with Christianity, we have also found that 
it was with a Christianity already established before its 
contact with paganism began. 
Tee ape On the contrary, the Christianity of Jus- 
TE tin presupposed, both positively and nega- 
ued, though tively, just that foundation which is described 
modited- in the New Testament. 

But at the same time Justin reveals the direction 


from which the influences proceeded which principally 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 298 


modified the Christianity of the Apostles in the age 
immediately following them. The new faith, launched 
on the broad sea of pagan society, was eX- mm, moain- 
posed to new winds and currents, and the pte? pate 
men who succeeded the Apostles as pilots and paganism 
captains were far from being able perfectly to anda? 
grasp and carry on the ideas of their great > 
predecessors. Minds which had not been trained in 
Hebrew conceptions were likely either to neglect or 
misuse them. The necessity of devoting attention to 
practical matters of Christian life and ecclesiastical 
arrangement, and the stress laid on moral duties by the 
glaring contrast between the Christian ideal and the 
manners of heathen society, naturally hindered the im- 
mediate and complete realization of doctrine. On the 
other hand, the rise of heresy confined doctrinal contro- 
versy, so far as this existed at all, to the particular sub- 
jects disputed by Doketics and Gnostics, and left other 
topics undeveloped. Truth is apprehended in its integ- 
rity only after it has been doubted and denied. Other- 
wise it is likely to lie, even in the minds of its ad- 
herents, in a chaotic and fragmentary state. It is not 
strange, therefore, that we discover in the post-apostolic 
Church a manifest fall in several particulars, and no- 
tably in the doctrine of justification, from the teaching 
of the Apostles. Nor is it strange that Justin combined 
ideas which were really antagonistic. It is not won- 
derful that his mind, trained in pagan culture and nat- 
urally inquisitive, sought to conform the religion whose 
power he experienced to the forms of thought in which 
he had been reared, or that, when testifying to the con- 
fessed belief of the Church, he taught doctrines which, 
when trying to explain them by philosophy, he muti- 
lated and distorted. In this very fall of post-apostolic 


294 JUSTIN MARTYR. 


doctrine below the completeness of apostolic teaching 
may we rather perceive a fresh testimony to the super- 
natural construction of the latter. It is easy to under- 
stand that an age of inspiration might be followed by 
an age which very imperfectly comprehended the ideas 
of its predecessor. But it is very difficult to under- 
stand how the later age could impute to its predecessor 
ideas, and even records, which convey the impression of 
a completeness of thought which the later age did not 
itself possess. 

Justin, therefore, was the fair representative of the 
Church, of the faith which it had received from the 
Justin the Apostles, and of the influences which were 
fair repre- . here developing and there corrupting it. 
his Churche Whether, however, it was development or 
corruption, the process, as disclosed by him, implies 
the already fixed establishment of the faith in the 
The infer. Minds of its followers as apostolic and funda- 
ences tobe mental. The marvellous spectacle of Chris- 
drawn from Ἷ : one Ξ 5 
his testi- tian morality arising in the depraved soci- 
ἌΝ ety of paganism, like the sun out οἵ a dense 
mist, and of Christian brotherhood and charity shed- 
ding the bright, warm rays of love upon a world which 
was divided into distrustful and envious classes and 
worshipped in the temple of brute Force, is a convinc- 
ing proof that a new moral power had been awakened 
in human life. The reliance of the Christians of the 
second century on apostolic teaching is further proof 
that from the apostolic age and circle had the new 
power come. It was not generated by the friction of 
ecclesiastical parties. It did not spring from the union 
of Hellenism and Judaism. Justin testifies not only to 
the belief, but, by fair inference, to the fact that it had 
sprung from the Christ whom all the Apostles had 


JUSTIN ON THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 295 


unitedly proclaimed. And faith in Christ as God 
manifest in the flesh, thus revealing at once the divine 
Father and a new ideal of human life; faith in His 
teaching as the new and true law of man’s present 
righteousness and future salvation; faith in His death 
and resurrection, as God’s victory for man over sin and 
death ; the consciousness of a new life, full of peace 
and satisfaction, derived from this faith in the Re- 
deemer; the confident expectation of glory to come on 
earth and after death,—these were the ideas which, 
like the light that streamed over chaos at the first 
creation, were the sign and the beginning of the new 
creation which by the Word of the Lord was appearing 
out of the chaos of the ancient world. That it was 
indeed a divine creation, wrought by the divine Word, 
is the sum and substance of Justin’s testimony to early 
Christianity. 


IN DEX, 


ἌΒΒΟΥ, Ezra, 221, 230. 
Abbott, E. A., 153, 214-2238, 225, 226, 
229-231. 
Acts of the Apostles, authenticity of | 
the, 114. | 
Justin’s acquaintance with the, 
238. 
rationalistie theory of the, 112- | 
114. 
Advent, Second, 120, 288. 
Alexandrianism, influence on Chris- | 
tian thought of, 9, 89, 96, 98, 
127, 153, 158, 165. 
not a Judaizing influence, 166. 
Angels, worship of, 276. 
Anthropology, Justin’s, 156-160. 
Antoninus: policy toward the Chris- 
tians, 68, 69. 
Apocalypse, quoted by Justin, 117, | 


Apologetic motives: influence on 


| Charges popularly made 


Justin’s statements, 246, 257. 
Apologies, Justin’s: 
argument of the first of, 33, 35, 
73-82. 
contents of, 30-38. 
date of, 28. 
mutual relation of, 27. 
Apologists, early Christian, 2, 180. 
Apostles: their authority as teachers, 
242, 243. 
Justin’s description of the, 116. 
mentioned by name, 117. 
Aristotle, influence on Justin of, 13, 
137, 146. 
Athenagoras, 2, 25, 124. 
Aubé, Barth., 13, 18, 19, 21, 28, 29, 66, 
121, 135, 139, 150, 158, 160. 
Aurelius, Marcus: policy toward 
Christians, 56, 70. 


Baptism, 164, 259, 283, 285. 

Barnabas, Epistle of, 112, 121, 124, 
130, 165, 177, 210. 

Basilideans, 255. 

Basilides, quotation of John by, 177. 

Baur, F. C., 48, 88, 106, 113, 173. 

Bindemann, 172. 

Bithynian persecution, 63. 

Bleek on Justin’s use of Gospels, 173. 


CABALISM, 9. 
Canon of the New Testament, forma- 
tion of the, 5, 87, 170, 171. 
Justin’s testimony to the, 178, 
237-250. 
other testimony to the, 249. 
Ceremonies, simplicity of Christian, 
79. 
against 
Christians, 31, 36, 37, 54, 55, 57. 
Charity, early Christian, 260. 
Christ, doctrine of the person of, 270- 
274. 
humanity of, 271. 
divinity of, 149-154, 271-274. 
Christ’s coming, object of, 161-163. 
Christ’s life, Justin’s account of, 179- 
182. 

Church a Gentile society, 102, 126. 
faith of the early, 270-291. 
government of the, 265-267. 
Justin a fair representative of 

the, 252. 
parties in the, 105-107. 
in each locality a single, 261. 
organization of the early, 258- 
267. 
unity of the early, 267-270. 
Ciasca, Professor, 236. 


298 


Clementine Homilies and Recogni- 
tions, 112, 115, 119, 127, 159. 
Clementine quotations compared with 
Justin’s, 202-205, 228-230. 
Clement of Rome, 68, 125, 177, 262, 
268. 
Colossians, Epistle to, Justin’s ac- 
quaintance with the, 240. 
Commodus: policy toward Chris- 
tians, 70. 
Corinthians, First Epistle to, Justin’s 
acquaintance with, 239. 
Second Epistle to, Justin’s ac- 
quaintance with, 241. 
Creation, doctrine of, 139. 
Credner, K. A., 47, 48, 172, 174, 178, 
235, 243. 
Crescens, 14. 
Critical theories of early Christianity, 
8, 86-91, 111-113. 


DEACONS, 7, 8, 261, 266. 
Dead, state of the, 159, 160, 290. 
Defence of Christianity, Justin’s, 73- 
82. 
Demonology, 158-160. 
Descent of Christ to Hades, 160, 290. 
Destruction of world by fire, 290. 
De Rossi, 65, 264. 
Dialogue with Trypho: 
how far historical, 18, 39. 
date of the, 28. 
contents of the, 38-44. 
Diffusion of Christianity in second 
century, 51. 
Dio Chrysostom, 58. 
Diognetus, Epistle to, 3, 57, 130, 177. 
Dion Cassius, 58, 68. 
Dionysius of Corinth, 72, 264, 269. 
Dorner, J. A., 48, 121, 122, 151, 273. 


EBIoniTEs, 23, 106, 109, 126. 

Gospel of the, 184, 185. 
Eclecticism, philosophic, 132-134. 
Eichhorn, J. G., 47, 172. 

Emperors, worship of the, 66, 78. 

Empire, the Church and the, 57-59. 

Engelhardt, Moritz von, 15, 18, 22, 
27-29, 48, 49, 91, 139, 147, 150, 174, 
176, 202, 208, 273, 277. 


INDEX. 


Ephesians, Epistle to, Justin’s ac- 
quaintance with, 241. 

Ephraem Syrus, 233, 236. 

Epiphanius’s account of Justin’s 
death, 12. 

Episcopate, the early, 8, 261-267. 

Eternal rewards and punishments, 
290. 

Eucharist, the, 260, 285, 286. 

Eusebius’s account of Justin, 12, 13, 
19, 20, 24, 27, 47. 

Exorcism of demons, 159. 


FIsHER, G. P., 179. 


GALATIANS, Epistle to, Justin’s ac- 
quaintance with, 240. 

Gibbon, 66. 

Gieseler, 67, 69, 70. 

Gildersleeve, B. L., 27, 198. 

Gnostics, 9, 130, 255, 256. 

God, Justin’s conception of, 141-147. 

“Gospel”: early use of the term, 
177. 

‘‘Gospels’’: application of the term 
to evangelical narratives, 176. 

Government, attitude toward Chris- 
tianity of the Roman, 60-73. 


Hasits of the early Christians, 53, 
59. 
Hadrian: letter to Fundanus, 62, 63, 
67. 
letter to Servianus, 69. 
policy toward Christians, 67-69. 
Harmony of the Gospels, whether 
used by Justin, 206-211. 
Harnack, A., 15, 19-21, 25, 26, 28, 29, 
47. 
Harris, Prof. Rendel, 209. 
Hatch, Dr. E., 7, 265. 
Hebrew economy, Justin’s view of 
the, 97-100. 
Hebrews, Epistle to, Justin’s ac- 
quaintance with, 240. 
Hegesippus, 3, 262, 263. 
Heresy, a novelty, 254-256. 
of demoniacal origin, 159, 254. 
repudiated, 254-256. 


INDEX. 


299 


Heretics not recognized by ‘‘ortho-| Judaism, rejected by post-apostolic 


dox,’? 53, 258. 
Hermas, 2, 177, 262, 263. 
Hilgenfeld, A., 48, 88, 90, 147, 173. 
Hippolytus, 15, 47, 177. 
Holtzmann, H., 89, 112. 
Hope, Christianity a new, 287-291. 
Hostility of Roman world to Chris- 
tians explained, 59, 60. 


“TpoL-MEAT,” abstinence from, 111- 
115. 

Ignatius, 8, 71, 89, 177, 191, 249, 262, 
269. 

Immortality, doctrine of, 140. 

Impatience of pagan society with 
Christians, 56-58. 

Incarnation, doctrine of the, 83, 84, 
161. 

Inspiration of the Scriptures, 93, 94, 
242-246. 

Interpretation, Justin’s method of 
Scriptural, 95, 96. 

Trenzeus, 1, 5, 7, 14, 22, 23, 42, 46, 121, 
125, 191, 264. 


JAMES, Protevangelium of, 204. 
Epistle of, Justin’s acquaintance 
with, 242. 
Jewish Christianity: attitude of the 
Church toward, 104, 105, 107- 
110. 
a diminishing element in the 
Church, 126, 292. 
Jewish Christians: Justin’s opinion 
of, 104, 256. 
two classes of, 105. 
John the Apostle: author of the 
Apocalypse, 117. 
his doctrine of the Logos, 149. 
John’s Gospel: used by Justin, 213- 
225. 
how used by Justin, 225-234. 
not a book of doctrine merely, 
231. 
one of the ‘‘ memoirs,’’ 234. 
early diffusion of, 233. 
John, First Epistle of, Justin’s ac- 
quaintance with, 241. 
Jowett, Professor, 141. 


Church, 100, 104, 110. 

not appreciated, 101. 

Judgment, the last, 289. 
Justin Martyr: 

his life, 12-24, 

date of birth, 12. 

studies in philosophy, 18, 182. 

conversion, 16-18. 

activity and influence, 14, 

arrival at Rome, 21. 

death, 15. 

chronology of his life, 19-21. 

his writings, 24-27. 

importance of his testimony, 45, 
46. 

honesty of his testimony, 50, 257, 
258. 

ancient and moderate estimates 
of, 46-49. 

his defence of Christianity, 73- 
82. 

his theology, 141-164. 


KAyE, Bishop, 93, 172. 
Kiss, the, 259. 


LACTANTIUS, 42. 
Legalism in Justin, 122-124, 
in post-apostolic Church, 113, 
122-126. 
not necessarily due to Judaism, 
125, 167. 
Life, Christianity a new, 282-287. 
Lightfoot, J. B., 51, 58, 61-63, 65, 66, 
68-72, 187, 235, 263, 266. 
Literature, Christian, of the second 
century, 1-3. 
Logos, Christianity explained by the 
incarnation of the, 83, 84. 
Justin’s and John’s doctrines of 
the, 146, 149, 153, 216. 
Justin’s doctrine of the, 94, 148- 
156. 
Justin’s use of New Testament 
influenced by his doctrine of 
the, 247. 
the Seminal, 136, 155, 156, 275. 
Lucian, 56, 71. 
Luke’s Gospel, Justin’s use of, 118, 
181, 200. 


300 


“MAN oF Srn,’’ 289, 

Mansel, Dean, 273. 

Marcion, 21, 23, 88, 107, 127, 254, 
255, 272. 

Mark’s Gospel, Justin’s use of, 178, 
201. 

Marsh, Bishop, 172. 

Martyrology of Justin, 15, 20. 

Matthew's Gospel, Justin’s use of, 
181, 200. 

Melito, 2, 70. 

“‘ Memoirs of the Apostles ’’: 


description of the, 175, 178, 
179. 

public ecclesiastical documents, 
179, 244. 


sources of evangelical knowl- 
edge, 179, 243, 244. 
quotations by Justin from the, 
197-201, 244. 
their relation to our Gospels, 
171-174, 178, 191. 
Menander, 33. 
Ministry, origin of the Christian, 7, 
261, 264-266. 
Mommsen, Th., 65. 
Morality, argument from Christian, 
78-82. 
Christianity a new, 282, 283. 


NEANDER, 48, 69, 70, 90, 278. 
New Testament, Justin’s use of the, 
170-250. 


OLD TESTAMENT: a Christian book, 
96. 
corruptions by Jews alleged, 42. 
highly esteemed, 92-94. 
quotations from the, 194-196. 
said to have been known to 
pagans, 94. 
Oral tradition, 190, 248. 
supplanted by the New Testa- 
ment, 244, 250. 
Orthodoxy, early, 11, 258-257. 
Otto’s edition of Justin, 15, 17, 20, 
26, 30, 39, 42, 44, 47, 48, 51, 119, 
137, 184, 273, 278. 
Overbeck, Fr., 91, 238. 


INDEX. 


PAGANISM, Christianity realized as- 
pirations of, 168, 287. 
explains the modifications of 
Christianity in post-apostolic 
age, 166-168, 292-294. 
demoniacal origin of, 159. 
vices of, 81. 

Papias, 121, 176, 177. 

Paul, Justin and, 100, 101, 103, 104, 
108, 110, 112, 116-120, 123. 

Pauline Epistles, Justin’s use of, 118, 
162, 190, 238-240. 

Paulus, H. E. G., 172, 174. 

Persecution, no formal, 61, 68. 

frequent outrages, 62, 72. 
less than at later period, 71, 72. 

Peter, First Epistle of, Justin’s ac- 
quaintance with, 242. 

Pfleiderer, Otto, 89. 

Philippians, Epistle to, Justin’s ac- 
quaintance with, 240. 

Philo, 133, 150, 153, 158, 216. 

Philosophy and Christianity, 9, 10, 
128, 130, 131. 

Philosophy a preparation for Chris- 

tianity, 135, 287. 

Christianity presupposed by Jus- 
tin’s, 166. 

Christianity represented as, 74— 
77. 

relation of the New Testament 
to, 9, 128, 129. 

Platonism, Justin’s relation to, 13, 
18, 35, 47, 185, 139-141, 145, 
146. 

Pliny, the younger, 58, 63-67. 

Plutarch, 58, 133. 

Polycarp, 72, 262, 269. 

Prayer, public, 259. 

Presbyters, 7, 8, 262-267. 

Prophecy, argument for Christianity 
from, 33, 75. 

Prophets, Christian, 265. 

Prophets, Hebrew, inspiration of the, 
94, 154, 155. 

Pythagoreans, Justin’s relation to, 
137 


QuoTATION from John’s 
227-231. 
Justin’s habit of, 192, 196. 


Gospel, 


INDEX. 


Quotations from classics in Justin, 
193. 
from Old Testament, 194-196. 
from ‘‘ Memoirs,”’ 197-201, 244. 


RATIONALISM, Justin’s, 162, 284. 
Redemption, doctrine of, 161, 279- 
282. 
Regeneration, 283-285. 
Resurrection, the, 120, 288, 289, 291. 
Reuss on the Canon, 5, 170, 201. 
Ritschl’s theory of post-apostolic 
Christianity, 48, 90, 91. 
Roman Church at middle of second 
century, 11, 23. 
title of president of the, 261- 
264. 
Romans, Epistle to, Justin’s ac- 
quaintance with, 238. 
Rusticus, Junius, 15, 20. 


SACERDOTALISM, not in early church, 
264. 
Sacraments, the, 79, 164, 259, 260, 
283-286. 
Sanday, W., 173, 174, 183, 184, 188, 
200, 202, 265. 
Saturnilians, 255. 
Schiirer, 26. 
Schwegler, 48, 173. 
Second century: importance of its 
study, 1-11. 
Semisch, 48, 150, 172. 
Semler, J. S., 47. 
Septuagint, use of the, 92, 93, 194, 
196. 
Simon Magus, 33, 254. 
Societies, the Christian, 52, 53, 78. 
independent, 52, 269. 
illegal, 61, 65. 
unity of the, 269. 
Societies, laws against unauthorized, 
65. 
Soteriology, Justin’s, 163-165. 
Spirit, doctrine of the Holy, 275- 
279. 
Stahlin, Ad., 48, 147. 
Stoicism, 13, 133. 
Justin’s relation to, 136, 138, 139. 
Suetonius, 57, 58. 


301 


Sunday, observance of, 260. 
Synoptic Gospels used by Justin, 
175-205. 
furnished the staple of evangeli- 
cal narrative in early Church, 
233. 


Tacitus, 57, 68. 

Tatian, 2, 15, 46, 77, 176, 284, 

Tatian’s Diatessaron, 210, 234-237. 

Taylor, Dr. Chas., 209. 

“Teaching of the Apostles,” 2, 121, 
177, 209, 210, 265. 

Tertullian, 14, 22, 48, 46, 55, 77, 121, 
125, 246. 

Textual corruption of MSS., 189. 

proves antiquity of Gospels, 212, 
213. 

Textual differences between Justin’s 
quotations from ‘‘ Memoirs ” and 
our Gospels, 192-201. 

Theological aim of eclectic philoso- 
phy, 134. 

“The Twelve,’’ 117, 119. 
Thessalonians, Second Epistle to, 
Justin’s acquaintance with, 239. 
Thoma, Albrecht, 118, 162, 214, 215, 

222, 224, 225, 229. 

Timothy, First Epistle to, Justin’s 
acquaintance with, 241. 

Titus, Epistle to, Justin’s acquaint- 
ance with, 241. 

Trajan, correspondence of Pliny and, 

63-66. 
policy toward the Christians, 
66-69. 

Trinity, doctrine of the, 274-279. 
Tiibingen School, theory of the, 48, 
86-88, 108, 173. 291, 292. 

modifications of the, 88-90, 111. 


UrerwEc, 135, 140, 156. 

Uneanonical Gospels, Justin’s al- 
leged use of, 184, 185, 189, 190, 
204. 

Uncanonical words of Christ, 187, 
188, 190. 

Unity of the early Church, 10, 52, 
267-270. 

Urbicus, Q. Lollius, 28, 61, 62. 


302 INDEX. 


VALENTINIANS, 255. Westcott and Hort: Notes on Select 
Variations in Gospel texts in early| Readings, 186, 212, 230. 

writers, 204. Westcott, B. F., 170, 174, 179, 183, 
Volter, Dan., 26. 199, 207, 283. 


Wieseler, 70. 
Worship of the Christians, public, 
244, 247, 260. 
WARFIELD, B. B., 2, 177. 
Weiss, B., 89, 153, 232, 233. 
Weizsicker, 21, 88, 48, 91, 187, 146, | Zaun, 210, 236. 
147, 150, 158, 286. Zeller, E., 75, 96, 135, 189, 156. 


\\\ 


WY 


τὲ 
Ν δ ὶ 


δ 
\ 
\ . | 
<« 
\ \ 


\\ δὰ Wy 
ΝᾺ . 


SS 

~~ 

\ 

\\ _ 

| 
~ NY \\ 


